Ukrainian President’s Office Announces Cease-Fire With Russia
9/3/14 4:46 AM EDT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia.html
Ukraine Retracts Claim of Cease-Fire With Russia
September 3, 2014 7:01 AM EDT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia.html
The office of President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine said Wednesday that he and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had a similar understanding about what was needed to achieve a cease-fire in southeastern Ukraine, but retracted a statement it made earlier in the day that said the two had agreed to a “lasting cease-fire.”The initial statement, posted on the presidential website, went too far in describing the results of a telephone call between the two leaders as having reached a cease-fire, said a spokesman, noting a revised version would be posted shortly.
The presidents exchanged opinions about a cease-fire, but there was no formal agreement, said the spokesman, who did not give his name, in line with protocol
If it actually existed, the US will sabotage its Ukrainian proxy's preliminary agreement to proceed with Putin's proposals for a peace plan. Or transform it into either another Putin dirty trick if not a 'west/obama' victory. A timely new 'ISIS beheading' before USNATO summit is expected to galvanize unity around US attempt to advance ITS all-in-one "ISIS crisis" GLOBAL solutions: "incentivize" other, NOT U.S., boots-on-the-ground', pre-established military "rapid response forces' around Russia to stop it, and warn China, against any further 'disruption' of the US dominated post WW2 hegemonic 'liberal world order.'
See previous digest issues for in-depth coverage.
U.S. seeks coalition against Islamic State, but military partners no sure bet
...U.S. leaders hope the relative success of humanitarian aid and recent strikes on militant weapons in Iraq will diminish allied fears over supporting new military action....It's unclear how many nations will sign up. Some such as trusted ally Britain harbor bitter memories of joining the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing" in the 2003 invasion of Iraq that included troops from 38 nations. Others such as France refused to join the action. The claims of the existence of weapons of mass destruction which spurred the coalition to act were found to be false.
The US, the officials said, could act alone if necessary against the militants...[but] are accelerating efforts to build a wide coalition...including a large group of countries, many eager to weaken IS but unwilling to take part in military action including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Britain, France, Australia and Germany, two officials said on condition of anonymity.
Will ISIS threat help reset US-Russia anti-terrorism cooperation?
With the Islamic State gaining ground in northern Iraq and now representing a common threat for Russia and the U.S....ISIS has become a sort of bogeyman...Its religious fanaticism, severe discipline and brutality overshadow even Al-Qaeda. Its military advance and expanding turf in Iraq is obvious, though its ambitions to establish a caliphate throughout the Middle East and Europe looks like an exaggeration and a surreal fantasy.... Does ISIS really pose a threat to Russia and the U.S.? Can this organization really succeed in expanding its influence globally? Should the world take seriously the declarations from ISIS about their geopolitical ambitions and global caliphate?...some experts admit that despite the looming ISIS threat, so far it is not in Russia’s international agenda. Jack Goldstone, political expert and professor at George Mason University, argues...“While ISIS is a threat to Russian interests...Ukraine is far more important to Russia so I do not expect Russia to change...It will focus on Ukraine first, and the Middle East second." Most importantly, “Putting Russian security chiefs on sanctions list formalizes the end of anti-terrorist cooperation between Russia and the West,” wrote Carnegie Moscow Center Dmitri Trenin July 22 in his Facebook post...
Interviews with leading stakeholders in the US-Russia relationship http://www.russia-direct.org/about-us#about
This tells you what 'ISIS' comprehensive restructuring - salvaging US global 'leadership' - is really about
* An assessment of ISIS and Ukraine with Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations & Steve Coll of the New Yorker magazine and The Columbia School of Journalism
Charlie Rose original broadcast date: 9/02/14 Episode #20182 http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/index.jsp?pgmid=1579
Nuland: US spent $5 Billion In Ukraine
December 13, 2013 Speech by Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, National Press Club
US-Ukraine Foundation Foundation International Business Conference, sponsored by Chevron. Ukraine-in-Washington lobby
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals." Nuland said the United States will continue to "promote Ukraine to the future it deserves."
NATO plans east European bases to counter Russian threat
...NATO secretary general said the NATO summit in Cardiff next week would overcome divisions within the alliance and agree to new deployments on Russia's borders ... to deter Putin from causing trouble in the former Soviet Baltic republics– a move certain to trigger a strong reaction from Moscow -- and outlined moves to boost Ukraine's security, "modernise" its armed forces and help it counter the threat from Russia...will involve pre-positioning Headquarters, bases, supplies, equipment, infrastructure preparation...."...But permanent NATO bases in east Europe is divisive.. US and UK support it, French, Italians and Spanish are opposed, Germans are sitting on the fence....The summit will also grapple with...the growing US exasperation with Europe's reluctance to fund its own security properly. "Since the end of the cold war we have lived in relatively good weather. Now we are faced with a profound climate change...Politicians have tried to harvest the peace dividend after the cold war... But now we are in a completely new security situation." ...
RAPID REINFORCEMENTS: NATO responded to Putin’s latest moves into Novoazovsk, Ukraine, with deployment of NATO troops into Eastern Europe
Russia 'to alter military strategy towards NATO'
2 September 2014 Last updated at 07:37 ET http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29026623
Mikhail Popov, deputy secretary of Russia's National Security Council, said deteriorating relations with the US and NATO would be reflected in the updated Russian military strategy... "the military infrastructure of NATO member states" getting closer to [Russian] borders, including enlargement" were one of the key "external threats" to Russia...evidence of the desire of US and NATO leaders to continue their policy of aggravating tensions with Russia
No Matter What Happens In the East, Ukraine Is Going To Default
UKRAINE on verge of default with 18 billion IMF bailout
read for a textbook description of what makes north america's exceptional 'leadership' necessary - and world enemy #1
Russia Assaults Ukraine—and the Liberal World Order
8/28/14,Stewart M. Patrick http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2014/08/28/russia-assaults-ukraine-and-the-...
Accumulating reports that more than a thousand Russian troops are now engaged in combat in eastern Ukraine signals the definitive end of the “post-Cold War” world. That phrase, which framed a quarter century in terms of what it was not, was never a felicitous one. But it did come to suggest a new era in which great power frictions were in abeyance, as the focus of world politics shifted to the management of global interdependence, the integration of emerging economies, the disciplining of rogue states, the quarantining of failed ones, and (after 9/11) the interdiction and elimination of non-state terrorist actors. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, however disingenuously denied and creatively concealed, constitutes a frontal assault on the liberal international order that the United States and its Western allies have done so much to promote and build. It represents—along with Chinese assertiveness in East Asia—the resurgence of a more primitive form of power politics...established norms of the liberal world order include:[...]
The threat of the Islamic State could bring together the country's warring opposition factions ...
NATO leaders gather amid new menace from old foe
Russian advances in Ukraine give alliance a renewed sense of purpose. But will NATO answer the call?
A Soviet Revival
4/26/14 Editorial Board, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-mr-putins-russia-the-lights-of...
US public diplomacy calls Putin a 'soviet' threat knowing Putin followed in Yeltsin and Gorbachev's footsteps helping US and signed the CIS official dissolution of the Soviet Union.
New Thinking: Foreign Policy under Gorbachev U.S. Library of Congress: Russia: A Country Study.1996 http://countrystudies.us/russia/17.htm
U.S. and Europe Struggling With Response to a Bold Russia
9/3/14 1:38 AM EDT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/europe/us-and-europe-are-struggl..., p. A1
Putin's Ukrainian gambit transformed the geopolitical chessboard in Eastern Europe. Here's how NATO should respond: the Georgian defense
Public Diplomacy/Strategic Communications: The increasingly desperate US world war to maintain global supremacy depends on divide-to-conquer 'news' that changes by the second
China Hosts SCO’s Largest-Ever Military Drills
7,000 troops from five countries in China August 24-29 in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) “Peace Mission 2014” military drills. SCO is a regional multilateral body of China, Russia, and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. This year’s military drill included troops from China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in what Chinese media called the largest SCO drill yet.The list of hardware was even more extensive: drones, early-warning aircraft, air-defense missiles, tanks, and armored vehicles...
another US divide-to-conquer failure
Russia and the SCO Military Exercises
8/29/14 ">http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/russia-and-the-sco-military-exercises/> http://thediplomat.com/about-us/partners/ >
Russia may be putting aside its reluctance to accept the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s growing clout in Central Asia.
In addition to revival of the SCO military element, renewed discussion of the SCO's possible expansion beyond its six founding members... it has had since its founding. The SCO’s annual summit in September in Dushanbe and ahead of the meeting member states’ foreign ministers reportedly finalized a protocols agreement for accepting new members. Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan are all observers, and India, Iran, and Pakistan in particular have been outspoken for many years in their desire to join as full members....
Moscow’s initiatives with respect to post-2014 Central Asian security have been implemented through...Russia's Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan... but recent months have also seen Russian attempts to increase coordination and cooperation between the SCO and CSTO. It’s possible Russia’s need for China as an ally will trump its previous worries about Beijing and the SCO activities in Central Asia and will accede to the group’s growing clout in Central Asia.
http://thediplomat.com/the-diplomat/...the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific region.Since its 2002...dedicated to quality analysis and commentary on Asia and around the world. The Diplomat reaches an influential audience of commentators, policymakers and academics
Putin's crime is violating US 1992 post-Soviet policy: openly dissing unilateral US hegemony and making Russia - and China - too-successful capitalist rivals
From The Pentagon Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
The New York Times March 8, 1992, Sunday http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D7173AF93BA35750C0A...
This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace".
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective:
First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.
Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.
The second objective is to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems. These objectives are especially important in deterring conflicts or threats in regions of security importance to the United States because of their proximity (such as Latin America), or where we have treaty obligations or security commitments to other nations. While the U.S. cannot become the world's "policeman," we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats from terrorism or regional or local conflict and narcotics trafficking....
It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to U.S. and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come. Even in the highly unlikely event that some future leadership in the former Soviet Union adopted strategic aims of recovering the lost empire or otherwise threatened global interests, the loss of Warsaw Pact allies and the subsequent and continuing dissolution of military capability would make any hope of success require several years or more of strategic and doctrinal re-orientation and force regeneration and redeployment, which in turn could only happen after a lengthy political realignment and re-orientation to aggressive political and economic control. Furthermore, any such political upheaval in or among the states of the former U.S.S.R. would be much more likely to issue in internal or localized hostilities, rather than a concerted strategic effort to marshal capabilities for external expansionism -- the ability to project power beyond their borders.
There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. But because we no longer face either a global threat or a hostile, non-democratic power dominating a region critical to our interests, we have the opportunity to meet threats at lower levels and lower costs -- as long as we are prepared to reconstitute additional forces should the need to counter a global threat re-emerge. . . .
REGIONAL THREATS AND RISKS
With the demise of a global military threat to U.S. interests, regional military threats, including possible conflicts arising in and from the territory of the former Soviet Union, will be of primary concern to the U.S. in the future. These threats are likely to arise in regions critical to the security of the U.S. and its allies, including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and the territory of the former Soviet Union. We also have important interests at stake in Latin America, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases, the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hostile power. . . .
Former Soviet Union
The former Soviet state achieved global reach and power by consolidating control over the resources in the territory of the former U.S.S.R. The best means of assuring that no hostile power is able to consolidate control over the resources within the former Soviet Union is to support its successor states (especially Russia and Ukraine) in their efforts to become democracies with market-based economies. A democratic partnership with Russia and the other republics would be the best possible outcome for the U.S. At the same time, we must also hedge against the possibility that democracy will fail, with the potential a regime bent on regenerating aggressive military power could emerge in Russia, or that similar regimes in other successor republics could lead to spreading conflict within the former U.S.S.R. or Eastern Europe....
For the immediate future, key U.S. concerns will be the ability of Russia and the other republics to demilitarize their societies, convert their military industries to civilian production, eliminate or, in the case of Russia, radically reduce their nuclear weapons inventory, maintain firm command and control over nuclear weapons, and prevent leakage of advanced military technology and expertise to other countries....
NATO continues to provide the indispensable foundation for a stable security environment in Europe. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs. While the U.S. supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO, particularly the alliance's integrated command structure....
The end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union have gone a long way toward increasing stability and reducing the military threat to Europe. The ascendancy of democratic reformers in the Russian republic, should this process continue, is likely to create a more benign policy toward Eastern Europe. However, the U.S. must keep in mind the long history of conflict between the states of Eastern Europe, as well as the potential for conflict between the states of Eastern Europe and those of the former Soviet Union ... The most promising avenues for anchoring the east-central Europeans to the West and stabilizing their democratic institutions is their participation in Western political and economic organizations. East-central European membership in the EC at the earliest opportunity, and expanded NATO liaisons. . . .
The U.S. could also consider extending to the east-central European states security commitments analogous to those we have extended to Persian Gulf states....Should there be a re-emergence of a threat from the Soviet Union's successor state, we should defend against such a threat in Eastern Europe, if there is an alliance decision to do so.
East Asia and Pacific
...Defense of Korea will likely remain one of the most demanding major regional contingencies...Asia is home to the world's greatest concentration of traditional Communist states, with fundamental values, governance, and policies decidedly at variance with our own and those of our friends and allies.
To buttress the vital political and economic relationships we have along the Pacific rim, we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area to enable the U.S. to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon....
Middle East and Southwest Asia
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a strong role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security....
We will seek to prevent the further development of a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, we should work to have both countries, India and Pakistan, adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place their nuclear energy facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive U.S.-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavor to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns...
Cuba's growing domestic crisis holds out the prospect for positive change, but over the near term Cuba's tenuous internal situation is likely to generate new challenges to U.S. policy. Consequently, our programs must provide capabilities to meet a variety of Cuban contingencies which could include an attempted repetition of the Mariel boatlift, a military provocation against the U.S. or an American ally, or political instability and internal conflict in Cuba.