Merkel Saves Nord Stream 2 With a Cunning Trick
By Gevorg Mirzayan | Stalker Zone | September 10, 2020
The German Chancellor said that the fate of the most important Russian gas pipeline “Nord Stream 2” will be decided not by Germany, but by the European Union as a whole. This is how she sees the response to the situation with Aleksey Navalny. It may seem that this is a terrible omen for the gas pipeline, which has already seen billions of euros invested into it for construction. But what did Angela Merkel really mean?
The fate of Nord Stream 2 was again in question. No sooner had the project’s supporters celebrated the removal of the Danish obstacle (Copenhagen, after much delay, gave permission for the pipe to be laid through its territorial waters) than Germany, which until recently was an advocate for construction and one of the main beneficiaries of construction, began to seemingly make obstacles.
Berlin, dissatisfied with the position of Moscow in the case of Aleksey Navalny, intends to put the question of a possible curtailment of the project to a pan-European discussion. Why does Angela Merkel want to close “Nord Stream 2” – and does she in general want to?
Legacy
Germany has long called for putting an end to “Nord Stream 2”, which in the understanding of a number of western activists “increases Europe’s dependence on Russian energy carriers”. They did not even require Angela Merkel to deliver a funeral speech over it. “The easiest option for Germany would be to simply withdraw its support for Nord Stream 2, allowing American and European critics to kill it,” the BBC writes. And now, against the background of the Navalny case, the aggressiveness of the project’s opponents has increased by an order of magnitude.
Until recently, it seemed that they were banging their heads against the wall of German pragmatism. Germany’s position on Nord Stream 2 was really reinforced concrete: German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was dissatisfied with the lack of cooperation with Moscow in the case of the “poisoning of Aleksey Navalny”, but was not going to abandon Nord Stream 2 because of this. After all, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas correctly notes, “those who call for the cancellation of the project should understand the consequences of such a step”.
Firstly, Berlin needs Nord Stream 2 from an economic point of view. “Germany has a very weak position in terms of energy. They are closing a lot of power plants – nuclear, coal,” says Donald Trump. Germany and the EU do not have reliable suppliers of cheap gas that are an alternative to Russia. In addition to getting cheap blue fuel (much needed for the export-oriented economy of Germany), Germany will earn good money on the transit of Russian gas, becoming a hub country.
“If the project is stopped, the German consumer will pay for it,” said Klaus Ernst, a member of the Bundestag from the Die Linke party. In addition, Berlin is also thinking about the security of Europe under its patronage – the internal political situation in Ukraine is deteriorating, and no one can guarantee that the militants not controlled by Kiev will not decide to stop the gas export of the “aggressor country” to Europe. Well, or threaten to stop if the EU does not issue another loan to Kiev.
Finally, the issue of reputation is also important. Angela Merkel was not just a supporter of Nord Stream 2, but also a lawyer. She defended the project against those who advocated abandoning infrastructure projects with “Putin’s Russia” – human rights activists, urban lunatics, agents of influence of the US. If now, because of the Navalny case, Merkel changes her position on the “stream”, then she will be criticised for political short-sightedness.
Moreover, by both opponents of Nord Stream 2 (for catching on too late) and supporters of the project, who are dissatisfied with the fact that Angela Merkel has called into question Germany’s energy security because of some political matter. Not to mention the fact that it caused serious damage to German business (Uniper and Wintershall invested almost a billion euros each in Nord Stream 2). And since Frau Chancellor leaves her post at the end of 2021, it is important for her who she will remain in history.
“It all depends on the Russians”
However, Angela Merkel’s pragmatism seemed to be beginning to bend under the pressure of numerous critics and human rights activists calling for “punishing Putin for another poisoning of an opponent”. In their opinion, Germany is the leader of the European Union and (against the background of Donald Trump’s actual refusal to “protect freedom around the world”) a potential leader of the entire liberal community, so it has no right to stay away from the Navalny case. Therefore, Angela Merkel announced the possibility of imposing sanctions against Nord Stream 2 ,and, according to media reports, intends to initiate a pan-European response to the case of Aleksey Navalny. And gather all the EU countries together to decide how to respond to Russia’s behaviour – and part of this reaction may be the suspension of Nord Stream 2.
This suspension will be a serious blow to Moscow. After all, this is not just about an important infrastructure project – there are much bigger things at stake. “The curtailment of Nord Stream 2 will send a clear signal with long-term consequences: German business will leave the Russian market even faster, and Vladimir Putin’s attempts to modernise Russia with the economic assistance of EU countries will finally turn to dust,” writes Deutsche Welle correspondent Miodrag Soric. At the same time, as they make it clear in Berlin, the blow can be avoided. “Our further actions depend on the behaviour of the Russians,” explains German Health Minister Jens Spahn.
“I hope the Russians won’t force us to change our position on Nord Stream 2,” says Heiko Maas, alluding to the fact that the Kremlin is expected to fulfil European demands concerning the Navalny case, and that they are waiting for prompt implementation, and “not by the end of the year or even within a few months”. These demands are very simple and not burdensome – not taking the blame, but just admitting the fact of poisoning, as well as starting an investigation.
Why shouldn’t they be implemented?
One of the reasons is as old as the Russian-west conflict. Moscow does not want to create a dangerous precedent for itself. The Kremlin, in fact, is being forced to admit a politically motivated accusation – after all, the Bundeswehr, whose laboratory declared “the indisputable fact of Navalny’s poisoning”, refused to provide the Russian authorities with any material evidence, citing “the secrecy of the methods and procedures used”.
If Russia now accepts this position on faith under the threat of sanctions, then the inspired western partners will threaten the same sanctions and issue other ultimatums: non-interference in the affairs of Belarus, withdrawal from Syria, etc. And this is not to mention the organisation and information support of other provocations that should be expected before the difficult political transit in Russia in 2024. If the blackmailer issues an ultimatum, the only way to escape from it is to refuse to fulfil any, even the most insignificant demands.
Divergence?
In addition, it makes no sense for Russia to make concessions to Berlin, because the position of Angela Merkel has never changed. Germany, as before, is not going to close Nord Stream 2 – it just behaves more elegantly and cunningly. Yes, it is partly bluffing for the sake of forcing Moscow to make concessions – but at the same time it may be an elegant attempt by Frau Chancellor to pass between the European trickles. By putting the issue up for European discussion, Angela Merkel is calling out those who support punishing Russia, confirming her political leadership – and at the same time putting a tricky block on accepting any tough sanctions.
The fact is that decisions at such meetings should be made by consensus. And if Angela Merkel had raised the question of approving the construction of Nord Stream 2, she would not have received a green light – after all, a number of EU countries (Poland, the Baltic states) are categorically opposed to the implementation of this infrastructure project. However, Frau Merkel (apparently) will ask about something else – should Russia’s punishment for the Navalny case be extended to Nord Stream 2? And here one should not expect any consensus on the completion of the project – the positions of the European countries are too different.
Recall that the pan-European decision concerning the Skripal case was only the collective expulsion of a certain number of Russian diplomats.
And this is despite the fact that back then the grounds for sanctions were much more serious than now. Firstly, there were at least some grounds for blaming Russia for what happened – there was a recording of “Petrov and Boshirov” arriving in Salisbury, as well as information provided to the media that these people work for the Russian special services. Secondly, it was about the use of weapons of mass destruction on the territory of the European Union, which can be interpreted as an attack by the Russian Federation on European citizens. Whilst here we are talking at best about poisoning – without any evidence of Russian guilt. And Moscow can only be accused of unwillingness to take Europe’s word for it. The most important infrastructure projects are not stopped for this by respected countries.
Angela Merkel’s proposal has another advantage for Russia – it protects (at least for a while) Nord Stream 2 from threats from other EU states. There is a risk that some less conscious countries (for example, Denmark) may take their own sanctions against the project. For example, revoke permission to lay a pipe through their waters. Bringing the issue to a pan-European discussion puts unilateral sanctions on pause.
And since Navalny is not dead, but is on the mend, time will cool the hot European heads, and the idea of blocking Nord Stream 2 will go off the agenda. At least for a while.
An India-China reset is still possible
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar (L) and China’s State Councilor & Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) met in Moscow, Sept 10, 2020
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | September 12, 2020
A joint statement wasn’t anticipated after the talks between the External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Moscow on September 10. In diplomatic terms, a joint statement signals that a “critical mass” developed through the 3-hour long discussion between the top diplomats.
Of course, much of the understanding reached will not be put in the public domain but it is apparent that an easing of tensions at the border and a disengagement of troops is on cards. The Chinese account assesses that the two foreign ministers have created “favourable conditions for a possible future meeting of the leaders of the two countries.”
Doesn’t this add up to a breakthrough? It does. That there isn’t going to be a war makes this a big breakthrough. So indeed, that deck is cleared for a summit meeting.
The joint statement outlined a 5-point consensus. First, the two countries reaffirmed the “series of consensus” reached by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping at their meetings in Astana (June 2017), Wuhan (April 2018) and Chennai (October 2018), which had committed the two countries to a cooperative relationship.
Second, a “quick disengagement” of border troops is envisaged, so that the two militaries will maintain a “proper distance and ease tensions.” Third, the existing agreements and protocols in bilateral boundary affairs” shall be adhered to and the two militaries shall “maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas and avoid any action that could escalate matters.”
Fourth, the two special representatives will continue “dialogue and communication” on the boundary question and the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs will hold meetings. Finally, once the tensions ease, new CBMs will be concluded to “maintain and enhance” peace and tranquility in the border areas.
Reading between the lines, the joint statement never once mentions the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Instead, the expression used is “border areas.” This suggests that there isn’t going to be any return to status quo ante as of early May, which has been an Indian demand.
The Indian army reportedly occupied certain “dominating heights” through the past week. But nothing has been mentioned in the joint statement in this regard. Conceivably, Indian troops’ mortal enemy in those dominating heights will be not the PLA but the harsh winter that is approaching in another 6 weeks or so. Maintaining a military presence in such inhospitable terrain entails heavy costs in life and treasure and will put an intolerable strain on our resources.
Succinctly put, what emerges from the joint statement is a mutual desire not to escalate the conflict situation and a shared opinion that a de-escalation of tensions is in mutual interest. However, there is lingering uncertainty as regards the way forward. To my mind, the creation of a buffer zone ( a demilitarised zone) at this point will be the best way to ensure peace and tranquility on the border on a durable basis.
Paradoxically, the crisis today also is an eyeopener. We peered into the abyss and didn’t like what we saw. Prime Minister Modi is a charismatic leader who can pitch high for a settlement of the boundary question. He is a strong leader who can take difficult decisions and cut the Gordian knot.
Clearly, India has shifted from the position that unless the PLA withdrew from “Indian territory”, the bilateral ties cannot be “business as usual.” In a huff, India began imposing sanctions against China. But the joint statement underscores that the two countries continue to uphold the “series of consensus” reached at the leadership level — where a key template is their common conviction that China and India are not competitive rivals or each other’s threats, but cooperation partners and each other’s developmental opportunities.
A Xinhua dispatch from Moscow giving a resume of the “full, in-depth discussion” between the two foreign ministers says, “Jaishankar said that the Indian side does not consider the development of India-China relations to be dependent on the settlement of the boundary question and India does not want to go backwards. The truth is, India-China relations have made steady progress over the years, and the Chinese and Indian leaders have met several times and reached a series of important consensus on the development of bilateral relations, he said.”
Clearly, sanctions must go. They have no place in the relationship. This rethink must be welcomed. But it is an abhorrent idea for sections of Indian opinion who are weaned on the belief that China has committed aggression by invading “Indian territory” and must be punished. The social media is full of venomous attacks on the Indian “sellout” at the Moscow talks, the “evisceration” of the LAC and so on.
However, that is primarily because the Indian narrative is seriously flawed. There is going to be a serious problem ahead for the government to “upgrade” the Indian narrative at this late stage. But the fact of the matter is that the Chinese had never accepted the LAC on the map or had delimited the LAC on the ground per the 1993 agreement.
They consistently held the view that the November 1959 claim line constituted the LAC. In the circumstances, how the disengagement and de-escalation can be worked out remains to be seen.
Looking back, the government’s move on August 5 last year to change the status of J&K and thereafter to include Aksai Chin as part of the Union Territory of Ladakh triggered a sequence of events culminating in the Chinese side changing the status quo on the ground and creating “new facts on the ground”.
India lacks the capability to challenge the Chinese action. But the country was led to believe otherwise. Per the Indian narrative, Indian armed forces have the capability to give a “bloody nose” to the PLA. So, there is bound to be a sense of disappointment today. India is paying a very high price for the strident nationalism and xenophobia that was whipped up by the ruling elite.
The Indian narrative is divorced from realities. The nation is bogged down in a raging epidemic and a deepening economic crisis. A vaccine to contain the pandemic will not be available in the market before the second half of next year. Meanwhile, the epidemic will remain as the “new normal”. A war with China will set back the country’s development by a decade. It is unthinkable.
Suffice to say, Jaishankar was given a weak hand to negotiate. And he has made a good job of it. The biggest gain is that a war has been averted and a new phase of constructive engagement of China with a sense of realism becomes possible. This is a moment of truth to rethink the entire foreign policy trajectory the government followed in the recent years.
Equally, it must be borne in mind that a replay of the “forward policy” that in 1962 plunged the country in a ruinous war was best avoided. The Mission Creep in the name of “infrastructure development” in Ladakh inevitably met with Chinese rebuff. All sorts of jingoistic notions stemming from the militarisation of India’s foreign policies in the past decade or so precluded rational thinking. The criticality of Aksai Chin region for China’s national security needed no iteration. Yet, we chose to meddle.
Fundamentally, India needs to come to terms with China’s rise and should have the composure and maturity to regard it as an inexorable historical process. Our zero sum mindset has done colossal damage. We must jettison it and refocus on constructively engaging China so as to take advantage of its meteoric rise for our country’s development, which is the number one priority today.
Australia Confronts a Changing Economic World
By James ONeill – New Eastern Outlook – 09.09.2020
The nature of Australia’s trading relationship with the rest of the world has changed dramatically in the 75 years since the end of World War II. In 1945–46 the total value of Australia’s exports of goods and services was $19 billion. It remained relatively low for the next 25 years, passing $50 billion only in 1969-70. It took a further 15 years to double, passing the $100 billion mark in 1984–85. It doubled again to $200 billion in 2000-01, and more than doubled again to $473.7 billion in 2019.
The nature of Australia’s export commodities has also changed rapidly over recent decades. Right up until the early 1980s rural commodities such as wool and meat dominated Australia’s exports. The shift away from this rural product reliance began in the 1970s, initially driven by exports of coal and iron ore.
Service exports began to assume a more dominant role in the 1980s. Short-term visitor arrivals into Australia went for about 137,000 in the early 1960s to over 2.5 million in 1991–92 and 9.3 million in 2019. The rural sector had a corresponding drop in its relative importance, accounting for about 42% of exports in 1969-70 to around 10% in 2018–19. Minerals and fuels on the other hand rose from under 17% to over 50% in the same period.
It was not just the structure of Australia’s exports that changed rapidly. The principal markets also changed radically. In the early 1960s the United Kingdom took 24% of Australia’s exports, the United States 13%, China 7.7% and Japan 22.4%. The figures for 2018-19 show a radical change. The United Kingdom has shrunk to less than 1.5%, the United States 3.9%, Japan a small shrinkage to 18% and a dramatic rise for China to just under 37% of the total.
Of Australia’s 25 largest export markets, (who account for the overwhelming majority of total exports) Asian countries constituted the greatest proportion, both in number and in value. Of the top 10 export markets, seven were in Asia (the other three being the United Kingdom, 4th, the United States 5th, and New Zealand 8th.) China, by far the largest market was 2.5 times greater than Japan in second place, and more than 10 times greater than the United Kingdom and the United States, each of the latter two accounting for less than 10% of the value of the Chinese market.
The year 2020 has seen some radical changes in Australia’s relationship with China, not all of which can be attributed to the virus. Australia’s exports to China fell by nearly a quarter year on year, and fell for each of the last five months to August 2020. It would be unwise to attribute this loss to the coronavirus effect. China’s imports from all nations grew by 6% in the year to August 2020 and the country’s economy, including imports, has had a relatively short and minor impact from the virus.
The Chinese view as expressed in the Party’s media outlet, the Global Times, in a series of articles featuring Australia in recent weeks, is that the slump in trade is a direct consequence of the deteriorating political relationship between the two countries. If the slump continues, and there are no signs at all of any improvement in the relationship, quite the contrary, the economic consequences for Australia will be devastating.
Unlike the food exports of decades ago, the market for mineral products is much less elastic. Importing countries have to have the industrial infrastructure to utilise the raw minerals, and new markets cannot be created in the medium, let alone short term.
It is not just exports that will be affected by the rapid cooling of China – Australia relations. Chinese students in 2019 comprised by far the biggest number of foreign students in Australian universities. That market has virtually vanished this year. Similarly, with Chinese tourists, again the largest group in 2019. It would be extremely unwise for either the tourist or the University sectors to expect any improvement in the foreseeable future. Both sectors contributed billions of dollars to Australia’s foreign exchange balance and supported tens of thousands of jobs.
It is not too difficult to ascertain the reasons for the deteriorating relationship between the two countries. A major factor is Australia’s relationship to the United States with the latter country engaging in a bitter economic and propaganda war with China. Contrary to the constant claims about the alleged freedom of the United States, it is engaged in a bitter economic war with China, arbitrarily excluding Chinese investment; the forced closure of Chinese companies; the forced closure of a Chinese consulate; reducing entry visas to Chinese citizens across a huge range of areas; and engaging in a constant propaganda war. Allegations of alleged Chinese responsibility for the current coronavirus outbreak is one example, accompanied by a bitter personalisation of the disease as the “China virus” by United States president Donald Trump.
The United States runs an enormous trade deficit with China which is somehow turned into a Chinese “fault”. The blunt reality is different. Chinese education and technology have significantly outpaced the United States in recent years. One manifestation of this is that a huge number of major United States companies have moved their production out of the United States and relocated to China and other Asian countries.
It is not just a cost driven exercise. As noted, the Chinese technology is now superior to that of the United States (as is also the case in Russia), the labour force is better educated, production costs are lower, and the market for advanced goods is rapidly expanding. China lifting 700 million people out of poverty this century alone has had major downstream effects, including an educated, affluent domestic market. The major social indicators in the United States by comparison have nearly all been in the opposite direction.
When one looks at the social and economic indicators in China, they all point to increasing demand for quality imports, whether of raw materials or other indicia of social and economic progress. Australia, with large resources and a small population (about the same as Shanghai) should be in a prime position to benefit from China’s economic progress.
Instead, as the figures now demonstrate, Australia is paying an economic price for its political subservience to the United States. That subservience takes many forms, all of which defy rational explanation if the test was one of a country acting in it own economic interests.
Australia has willingly engaged in the United States’ foreign wars of choice, from Korea 70 years ago up to and including the ongoing travesties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. None of that by itself would necessarily have impacted on Australia’s relationship with China. In recent years, and especially in the Trump era, that subservience has taken on a different and more dangerous element.
Australia seems to have completely disregarded the maxim attributed to Lord Palmerston: a country has neither friends nor enemies, only interests. The current actions of the Australian government are the antithesis of enlightened self-interest. To go out of one’s way to annoy and alienate such an important economic partner (in multiple senses) such as China, is simply irrational. The foolishness is compounded by there being an absence of any obvious plan B.
The next few years are likely to be years of hardship for Australia unprecedented in the modern era. The Australian government has only itself to blame. It would be extremely unwise to assume that a change of government in Australia would make the least difference. The Opposition Labor Party is basically an echo chamber when it comes to the government’s actions with regard to China.
The reasons for that go back in all probability to the overthrow of the Labor government in 1975, an exercise from which the party has never fundamentally recovered. Under the Australian electoral system, itself uniquely bad for a so-called democratic nation, no viable alternative to the two major parties seems a realistic prospect. Australia will have to learn to adjust to a new, and harsher, economic reality.
James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law.
Pentagon awards Northrop Grumman contract to develop next-gen $85bn ICBM for nuclear triad upgrade
RT | September 9, 2020
The Pentagon has handed arms manufacturer Northrop Grumman a colossal $13.3 billion contract to develop a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III missile, part of a sweeping modernization effort to update the US’ nuclear triad.
Northrop announced the deal on Tuesday, saying the company was “selected by the US Air Force to modernize the nation’s aging intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system.” The multi-billion dollar contract will see Northrop begin work on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, an eight-year project that will focus on the design of the new missile system, as well as early testing and evaluation.
The new long-range missile, according to the Air Force, “will have increased accuracy, enhanced security, and improved reliability to provide the United States with an upgraded and broader array of strategic nuclear options.” It is expected to be in operation by 2029 and could ultimately cost up to $85 billion.
Though Boeing also vied for the contract, it dropped from the bidding in July after Northrop’s acquisition of Orbital ATK, a solid rocket motor manufacturer, one of only two US-based suppliers for that type of motor. Boeing argued the other supplier was not suitable for the GBSD project, and that the Northrop-owned company dragged its feet in price negotiations, claiming Northrop had an “unfair advantage.” The Air Force refused to act on Boeing’s complaints, however, and the firm withdrew its bid.
The development of a new ICBM comes as part of a massive nuclear modernization scheme instituted under former president Barack Obama, initially set to cost $1 trillion and span three decades. Though President Donald Trump has rejected much of his predecessor’s legacy, he has embraced the nuclear initiative with open arms, even approving greater spending for the project in the 2021 budget. In addition to replacing the Minuteman III, whose first variant was put into service in 1970, the military is also working to revamp the other two legs of the US nuclear triad, including upgrades for its nuclear-capable aircraft and submarines.
No mass snooping, coercion or backdoors: China pokes US in the eye with global digital rules proposal
RT | September 8, 2020
Beijing wants the world community to adopt a set of rules for developing the digital economy, which would endorse national sovereignty over data and oppose mass electronic surveillance in foreign cyberspace.
The code of conduct, dubbed the ‘Global Initiative on Data Security’, was presented on Tuesday by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at a conference in Beijing. While the name ‘United States’ was never mentioned in his speech, the official left no doubt that Washington’s recent attacks on the Chinese tech sector prompted the proposal.
“Bent on unilateral acts, a certain country keeps making groundless accusations against others in the name of ‘clean’ network and used security as a pretext to prey on enterprises of other countries who have a competitive edge,” he said. “Such blatant acts of bullying must be opposed and rejected.”
The Trump administration last month announced its ‘Clean Network Initiative’, aimed at pushing “untrusted” Chinese telecom companies and apps out of the US market and protecting undersea communication cables from eavesdropping.
Wang, who also holds the powerful office of state councilor, blasted the US approach as politicization of security issues and protectionism that stifle innovation, and outlined China’s own vision for the digital future. Beijing believes national governments have a legitimate claim on data generated under their sovereignty and should respect each other’s laws on its handling.
Among other things, it means that countries should not “conduct mass surveillance [on foreign soil] or engage in unauthorized collection of personal information of other states,” he said. Governments likewise should not pressure domestic companies into storing foreign data on their territory.
The companies themselves must not install backdoors in their products to gain illegal access to user data or take abusive advantage of the dependence on their products, he added.
The US push against Chinese companies like telecom producer Huawei, digital giant Tencent, and TikTok owner ByteDance is justified by a concern for user data and intellectual property. Washington claims that Chinese companies are subservient to Beijing and act as government agents harvesting the information of their foreign clients.
Beijing denies the allegations, and Wong reiterated that China pledges to adhere to the principles it proposes.
“We have not and will not ask Chinese companies to transfer data overseas to the government in breach of other countries’ laws,” he told the gathering.
He said the Chinese digital economy already accounts for more than one-third of the country’s GDP, with over 900 million internet users, including 88 million 5G subscribers, located in the country. Beijing believes its initiative would drive global digital growth.
Imposing sanctions on Russian officials for the alleged poisoning of Alexey Navalny is ‘absurd’ & ‘unacceptable’ says Kremlin
By Jonny Tickle | RT | September 7, 2020
The Kremlin has ridiculed the suggested creation of a ‘Navalny List’ that would impose more sanctions on Russians, following accusations that Moscow is responsible for the alleged poison attack on opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
On Saturday, the American conservative journalist Bret Stephens wrote in the New York Times that the US should pass a ‘Navalny Act,’ similar to the 2012 Magnitsky Act, in order to punish Russian authorities for the poisoning of the political blogger.
“There are many absurd initiatives, both on the right and on the left,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, explaining that it is “unacceptable” to associate the Russian leadership with the alleged attack on Navalny.
According to Stephens, the proposal has been backed by vulture capitalist Bill Browder, who is wanted on criminal charges in Russia, who suggested that a long list of officials should be punished simultaneously by the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, and Australia. Browder is best known for pushing governments worldwide to impose sanctions in retaliation for the death of Russian auditor Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Moscow prison in 2009, eight days before he was due to stand trial for alleged financial offenses.
Since Magnitsky’s death, Browder has courted politicians from all corners of the globe to punish those he deems responsible. In 2012, this prompted the US to adopt the Magnitsky Act, which allowed the US to sanction numerous Russian officials and businessmen over alleged human rights violations. Despite allegations that Browder has fabricated parts of the auditor’s story, which have been largely ignored by US/UK media, similar legislation has also been passed in Canada and Britain.
“It would be strange if a person like Browder, who is wanted by Russia for tax and other crimes, did not agree with such absurd proposals,” Peskov pointed out.
Navalny, a well-known protest leader and anti-corruption campaigner, was taken ill on August 20 during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow, which was forced to land in the Siberian city of Omsk. After being taken to the hospital, Navalny’s associates asked that he be transferred for treatment in Germany. Two days later, he landed in Berlin, where on Monday he was described as steadily emerging from a medically induced a coma in that city’s Charité clinic. According to the German authorities, the opposition figure was poisoned with a nerve agent from the Novichok group.
Vucic Discloses Content of Bilateral Agreement on Kosovo Signed at White House
Moving the Serbian embassy to Jerusalem was a loan origination fee?
Sputnik – 04.09.2020
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic revealed on Friday the content of an agreement on the self-proclaimed republic of Kosovo, signed with the United States at the White House.
Vucic stressed that the Serbian leadership and the Kosovars signed separate bilateral agreements with the United States and listed his country’s points.
“We signed today a bilateral agreement with the United States, this is not a trilateral agreement, which is very important. This is a bilateral agreement because the third party is not recognized in this agreement as a subject of international law”, Vucic said, as broadcast by national TV.
According to the president, the agreement is primarily focused on the economy and contains 16 clauses. Self-proclaimed Kosovo also signed a bilateral agreement with the United States.
“The Americans will be watching together with us the project to build a highway to Pristina, which will be important for Serbs living in Kosovo and Metohija”, the president said.
He added that the parties agreed on the construction of a railway to connect the Serbian regions of Kosovo and Pristina with Belgrade via the Merdare checkpoint.
“It [the agreement] also talks about how various financial corporations and the Export-Import Bank of the United States will finance these and other projects”, Vucic stressed.
According to the Serbian leader, representatives of Pristina persistently opposed the Balkan Mini Schengen Zone (cross-border trade and economic initiative).
Vucic also drew attention to the section of the agreement according to which the parties agreed together with the US Department of Energy and other government agencies on the division of energy resources of Gazivoda Lake in Kosovo.
This, according to the president, is about the energy produced by the hydroelectric power station and the water of the accumulation lake, which will be divided between Belgrade and Pristina.
Among the other points of the agreement is the mutual recognition of diplomas and professional certificates, launch of 5G networks from reliable suppliers, ensuring airport security controls for a future visa-free regime with the United States, protecting and supporting religious freedoms, which should ensure greater security for the clergy and facilities of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It also provides for a one-year moratorium on recognition of Kosovo independence from third countries, as well as on Serbian lobbying for the withdrawal of this recognition.
The Serbian delegation headed by Vucic is currently in Washington, where it held talks with Kosovo Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti. Earlier on Friday, the two Balkan states signed a deal to normalize economic ties in the presence of US President Donald Trump.
Troop Withdrawal from Iraq isn’t an ‘American Retreat’
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 04.09.2020
The US president is reportedly in talks with Iraq’s Prime Minister to bring the current level of US troops in Iraq down to the level of 2015. This change will see troop number coming down from the current 5200 to about 3500, indicating a US ‘drawdown’ from Iraq following the Iraqi parliament’s resolution to force all US troops out of the country. While, on the face of it, these talks indicate a massive ‘respect for the Iraqi sovereignty’ and Trump’s resolve to end the US’ ‘endless wars’, a deep look at the wider regional and American core strategic interests indicates that not only America’s wars are not ending, the ‘drawdown’ does not mean ending region’s militarization too, although it does have some significance for Trump’s own domestic political interests ahead of elections.
For Trump supporters, he is fulfilling yet another of the promises he made during his previous campaign. He is withdrawing from Afghanistan, is bringing home thousands of troops from Germany and has already withdrawn 500 troops from Syria. While this may bode well politically, strategically he is still continuing America’s wars, particularly against Iran. This was indeed what Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of the Pentagon’s Central Command, said in a virtual conference organized by the United States Institute of Peace. To quote him:
“As I look at the theater, we remain focused on Iran as our central problem. This headquarters focuses on Iran, executing deterrence activities against Iran, and doing those things”, adding that “The threat against our forces from Shiite militant groups has caused us to put resources that we would otherwise use against ISIS to provide for our own defense and that has lowered our ability to work effectively against them.”
McKenzie’s comments are very much consistent with what the Trump administration has been trying to do against Iran in the form of re-imposition of arms embargoes, a stubborn insistence that has already become a fiasco, indicating how fast the US is losing its ability to unilaterally design global scenarios.
It is, therefore, imperative to understand that bringing US troops level down does not indicate a step towards an imminent US-Iran normalization. For instance, even if the US troops were there to check Iran’s influence, the US is still very much into establishing its political and economic tentacles in Iraq through non-military means. This is evident from the expanding US economic presence in Iraq to supposedly reduce Iraq’s dependence on Iran for meeting its energy needs.
Five US firms, including Chevron Corp, have already signed agreements with the Iraqi government. These agreements were signed on the sidelines of Kadhimi’s recent visit to the US where he discussed with Trump the future of US troops in Iraq and the continuing need for the training of Iraqi troops. Chevron has already been drilling oil in Iraq’s Kurdistan region. With the second largest US oil company now set to establish itself in the mainland Iraq as well, there remains little gainsaying that the US is rapidly allowing for replacing Iraq’s dependence on Iran with Iraq’s dependence on the US. This is a straightforward case of adding Iraq’s economic dependence to its already military dependence on the US.
According to US officials, this move towards increasing Iraq’s indigenous energy and electricity capacity is a part of the larger plan to wean the country away from Iranian influence and connect it more deeply with Arab countries. “It is vital that Iraq’s electricity grid be connected to the GCC. We’ve been working on this, as I’m sure you know, and there’s more work to be done. And so that will continue,” a US official was quoted to have said.
Doing this is crucial for the US as Iraq’s dependence on Iran is seen as the key to the latter’s influence in the former. Iraq’s energy sector is dependent on imports from Iran, and even after the US slapped sanctions on Iran’s energy exports, Iraq continues to import natural gas and electricity from Iran under a special waiver that the US has regularly extended. The US wants to change it.
The US State department has already affirmed that “The Government of Iraq, Gulf Cooperation Council, and United States have renewed their full support for the Gulf Cooperation Council Interconnection Authority (GCCIA) project to connect the electricity grids of Iraq and the GCC. The United States is committed to facilitating this project and providing support where needed. This project will provide much-needed electricity to the people of Iraq and support Iraq’s economic development, particularly in the southern provinces.”
Accordingly, while announcing commercial agreements worth as much as US$8 billion between US energy companies and the Government of Iraq, the US Secretary of Energy Brouillette emphasized the critical role U.S. private investment will continue to play in Iraq’s energy future and stressed the need for “rapid progress towards energy independence from Iran.”
There is no denying that the US presence in Iraq, military or otherwise, remains Iran-centric. A troop drawdown does in no way indicate a US ‘retreat’ from Iraq because of continuous military tensions and rocket attacks by Iran backed militias. While Iran’s influence in Iraq goes way beyond the Iraqi regime, an enhanced US presence indicates that the US will continue to push against Iranian influence through military (the US would still have more than 3000 troops in Iraq) and politico-economic means.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case
Strategic Culture Foundation | September 4, 2020
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has all but accused the Russian government of attempted murder in the strange case of Alexei Navalny, the dissident figure who reportedly remains comatose in a Berlin hospital.
Merkel spoke after a German military laboratory announced earlier this week it had “unequivocal proof” that Navalny had been poisoned with “Novichok”, a Soviet-era military-grade nerve agent.
“It raises serious questions that only the Russian government can and must answer,” Merkel told media reporters. The chancellor’s assertions were immediately reinforced by the United States, Britain and the head of NATO, each demanding Moscow to be held to account.
The Russian government rejected the accusations, saying they were being made improperly. It noted that the German authorities did not inform Moscow of its claims directly, but rather communicated first with its Western allies. There is more than a suggestion that the Western response is being coordinated to railroad accusations against Russia without Moscow being afforded due process. There is a presumption of guilt which violates due process and diplomatic protocol. And, of course, this is not for the first time when it comes to Western contemptuous relations with Russia.
Contrary to Western assertions about Russia having to answer questions about the Navalny case, the onus is very much on the German authorities to explain their “findings” and to back them up with verifiable evidence. Otherwise it amounts to hearsay and innuendo.
First of all, the Germans say they have “unequivocal proof” that Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, reportedly from tests carried out on his blood samples. But the German military laboratory and doctors in Berlin have not provided any biomaterials to Russia for the latter to independently verify the alleged detection of Novichok.
Secondly, the Russian doctors who first treated Navalny after he suddenly fell ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on August 20 have affirmed that they carried out comprehensive toxicology tests on his biological fluids and organs, and they detected no traces of toxins. Specifically no traces of organophosphate nerve agents. The Russian medics concluded that Navalny may have become ill from a metabolic disorder, such as extremely low blood sugar.
The Russian doctors who treated Navalny, and possibly saved his life by their quick intervention, said they detected the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors which affect the nervous system, but such substances can be caused by a wide range of clinical pharmaceuticals, including those used for the treatment of diabetes which Navalny reportedly suffers from.
However, the crucial point is this: the Russian toxicology tests found no presence of Novichok or any other such nerve poison in Navalny’s body. The Russian medics reportedly still possess the original body samples taken when Navalny was being treated in Russia. It is the Germans who are claiming they have detected Novichok, but so far they have not provided verifiable proof. It is their word for it, that’s all.
There are more questions needing answers. Navalny was airlifted from Russia to Berlin on August 22 under heavy pressure from Germany and other Western states for Moscow to permit his relocation. Why the urgency to do so? Why did Moscow relent in allowing this strange foreign intervention in its internal affairs?
If, for argument sake, the Kremlin had in some way plotted to cause Navalny harm with Novichok or some other poison, why would Moscow permit his relocation to Berlin where toxicology tests would uncover the purported plot? That scenario is illogical.
Navalny’s aides immediately claimed he was poisoned when he fell ill. They said he may have been poisoned from drinking tea at Tomsk airport before his flight. But CCTV footage shows Navalny being handed the drink by an aide. So, if anyone intended Navalny’s intoxication from the beverage, they wouldn’t have known he was to be the person who received the drink.
Furthermore, the Russian scientists who invented Novichok have stated categorically that if the nerve agent was somehow involved in the Navalny case, then he would most likely be dead by now and not in a coma. Also, they say, his aides and those who treated Navalny onboard the flight from Tomsk, would inevitably have been contaminated and sickened, so deadly is this chemical weapon.
Let’s recap. Navalny did not have toxins in his body and specifically not organophosphate nerve agents of the Novichok type, according to the Russian toxicologists. Let’s give them benefit of doubt. The poison was only detected – allegedly – by the German military laboratory five days after Navalny was received at the Berlin hospital last weekend. Yet the Germans – and this is crucial – are not sharing their bio-evidence with Russia. They have instead rushed to make grave accusations against Moscow, along with their Western allies. Without a chain of verifiable evidence, this is a travesty of due process.
What this all relies on is presumption of guilt, as well as large prejudice stemming from Russophobia, and the invocation of dubious past unproven cases such as the 2018 alleged poisoning of British double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury. The whereabouts of Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen, remains a mystery which only the British authorities can reveal, yet their strange case is thrown at Moscow to answer for, just like the current Navalny case.
The timing of the Navalny case is also significant. There are several current geopolitical factors at play. First there is the isolation of Washington at the United Nations in its attempt to force the reimposition of sanctions on Iran over the nuclear accord. This week saw Russian, Chinese, British, French and German diplomats meeting in Vienna in a bid to save the international nuclear deal in spite of American sabotage efforts. The Navalny case “poisons” diplomatic unity to defend the nuclear accord.
Another geopolitical factor is the political upheaval in Belarus. Washington and the European Union appear to be exploiting the unrest to destabilize relations between Russia and its neighbor. The Navalny case fits an agenda of undermining Moscow and impeding its relations with Minsk.
A third factor – and this may be the most significant – is the Nord Stream 2 gas supply project from Russia to Germany. The $11 billion, 1,200-kilometer pipeline has been targeted intensely by the Trump administration for derailment. There are also pro-Washington politicians in the ruling German Christian Democrat party who have been persistent in their opposition to the ambitious boost to energy trade between Russia and Europe.
The New York Times headlined on September 3: “Navalny Poisoning Raises Pressure on Merkel to Cancel Russian Pipeline”.
Last week, Merkel was insisting that the Navalny case did not impinge on the Nord Stream 2 project’s completion. This week, German military intelligence is claiming that Novichok was used to poison Navalny, and now Merkel is under intensified pressure to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. As ever, the old criminologist question of who gains should be foremost here.
Indeed, there are several serious questions to answer in the Navalny case. But it is Germany and its Western allies who are best placed to provide answers, not Russia.
Stoltenberg to Convene NATO Meeting on Friday to Discuss Navalny Situation
Sputnik – 03.09.2020
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg will convene an emergency meeting on Friday to discuss the situation involving Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny, the alliance’s spokeswoman, Oana Lungescu, said on Thursday.
Navalny is currently undergoing treatment in a German hospital after suffering a medical emergency in late August. Berlin on Wednesday said that a German military laboratory possessed undeniable proof of the 44-year-old’s intoxication with a nerve agent from the Novichok group. The Russian Foreign Ministry noted in response that the German government’s claims of Navalny’s poisoning lacked evidence and added that it was perplexing why Berlin first addressed the EU, NATO and third parties, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, instead of contacting Russia directly.
Lungescu took to Twitter to announce the upcoming meeting.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier in the day that there had been no contacts between Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the issue of Navalny. He also noted that Russia was interested in shedding the light on the situation as much as anyone else, however, Germany did not provide any information.
EU Urges Russia to Cooperate With OPCW in Navalny Case for Impartial Probe, Borrell Says
The European Union urges Russia to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the situation with Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny to ensure an impartial international investigation, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said in a statement.
“The European Union condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny. … The European Union calls upon the Russian Federation to fully cooperate with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure an impartial international investigation,” the statement says.
The EU is calling for an international response to the situation with Navalny and reserves the right to impose sanctions, Borrell added.
The EU will continue to closely monitor the situation and consider possible implications, he said.
Featured Video
Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the bones of theories that were once thought “certain” (e.g., that the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others).
Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
- Why don’t UK media mention the Israel lobby?
- New US shipment of 6,500 tons of military aid arrives in Israel
- Military aid to Ukraine vital for ‘US hegemony’ – Republican senator
- Zelensky’s favorite drone company at center of Ukrainian corruption alert
- The Broken Contract
- US CENTCOM’s Request for Dark Eagle Missiles Shows Shortage of Weapons and Limited Options
- Iran consolidates Strait of Hormuz control in post-war power shift, leaving US in dark
- A pause, not a ceasefire: Washington stalls, Tehran recalibrates
- US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes
- If Americans Knew
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- Nun assaulted in Jerusalem amid ‘pattern’ of anti-Christian attacks by Israelis
- Former Tik Tok official describes massive pressure from Israel lobby
- Amid ceasefire violations and genocide, Israel commits piracy – Daily Update
- Five Laws and Standards That Require the US Cut Off Weapons to Israel
- Israel’s diabolical killing machine and how it targets journalists.
- The Global Sumud Flotilla to Gaza — A cry at sea to the world’s dormant conscience
- Politico’s powerful parent company tells Politico they must support Israeli narrative
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 