World War Three Thread....

[American Patriot]

Posted by a Swede on FR. LOL!

Is there any reason NOT to attack Russia, Cuba, North Korea and Iran?
09/01/2008 | WesternCulture

Posted on Monday, September 01, 2008 4:51:41 PM by WesternCulture

Even though my country, Sweden, isn't a NATO-member, I'm beginning to feel somewhat annoyed over the behavior the Russian Air Force displays towards my dear neighbor country Norway.

I think the Nordic countries, as well as the whole of "Democratic" Europe will have to fight Russian Expansionism within a generation.

Russia will lose.

Russia stands no chance against a united Western Europe - and if Russia does not wish to realize this, we will make them highly aware of their inferiority in terms of population size, technological know-how, production capacity and overall management skills.

Compared to governments like those of Iran, Cuba and North Korea, the Russian leaders, at least, seem to have convinced their own people of being able rulers.

The respective governments of Iran, Cuba and North Korea, on the other hand, couldn't care less about what the inhabitants of their own nations actually think about their oppressors.

The victims of these regimes could probably not dethrone their leaders all by themselves - but we could!

The Free World is stronger than ever and this we Westerners ought to realize.

Saddam Hussein resisted the doctrine of "Western" freedom and civilization. Today, he is gone and no longer troubles me while I watch the news on TV.

Saddam was not the last tyrant wishing to see us Westerners dead.

Humanity's quest for freedom just won't go away, but it seems like the evil of tyranny will stick around for a while too!

It's not enough to merely commemmorate the accomplishments of men like Churchill and Reagan. We must be prepared to defend what they handed down to us.

[American Patriot]

Rebel Moldova province leader calls for Russia troop increase
Posted : Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:47:01 GMT
Author : DPA

Europe World News | Home

Chisinau - The leader of Moldova's renegade province Transnistria on Monday called for a three-fold increase in Russian troops stationed in the region, the Interfax news agency reported. Igor Smirnov, Transnistria's authoritarian leader, said Russia should increase its "peacekeeper" force in the district from some 1,000 to 3,000 men.

"I believe that Russia should increase its peacekeeping contingent in Transnistria to 3,000 persons," Smirnov said. "(The increase) would not be in violation of international obligations (taken on by Moscow.)"

Smirnov's call for an increase in the Russian troop presence would, if agreed to by Moscow, reverse years of gradual demilitarization in the region.

Russian forces fought on the Transnistrian side during Moldova's civil war ending in 1992. The Kremlin in 1999 promised to remove the last of its troops from the region by the end of 2003.

The Kremlin currently maintains troops in Transnistria as peacekeepers and arms depot guards. Russian officials have said the troops should remain in place despite the 2003 deadline, because of a need to maintain security in the region.

The Moldova-Transnistria ceasefire line has been peaceful for more than a decade, despite the technical state of war still in effect between Chisinau and Tiraspol.

Russian-speaking Transnistria seceded from Romanian-speaking Moldova after a civil war ending in 1992. Like the Georgian renegade provinces South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia is Transnistria's main backer.

[American Patriot]

Report: Iran denies purchase of Russian S-300 system
Xinhuanet.com/ ^ | 2008-09-02 03:51:22

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi on Monday denied reports that Tehran has purchased the S-300 system, an advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft missile, the English-language Press TV satellite channel reported.

"No such thing is correct," Qashqavi told reporters in his weekly press conference.

Iran's missile and technical capabilities are the outcome of a homegrown technology developed by Iranian scientists, Qashqavi said, adding that "this technology was recently demonstrated."

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) completed military maneuvers in the Gulf called Payambar-e Azam 3 (Great Prophet 3) in mid July to improve combat readiness and capability. Iran successfully test fired new long-and medium-range missiles in the drills.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.xinhuanet.com ...

[American Patriot]

Russia faces new Caucasus uprising in Ingushetia

Russia has been forced to increase its military presence in the North Caucasus amid growing fears that the Kremlin could face the type of separatist rebellion it has long supported in neighbouring Georgia.



By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 8:32PM BST 01 Sep 2008

Mr Yevloyev's death could act as a catalyst for opposition against regional head Murat Zyazikov and close ally of Vladimir Putin Photo: AFP/Getty Images




Over 1,000 people staged a rare anti-government rally in the semi-autonomous republic of Ingushetia, arguably the most volatile spot in the troubled region, after a prominent activist journalist was shot dead while in police custody at the weekend.


The death of Magomed Yevloyev, an outspoken Kremlin critic, is the latest, but perhaps most significant, incident in a surge of violence that has gripped the republics of the North Caucasus since Russia sent its troops into Georgia.


Separatist militants linked to a low-level Islamist insurgency have launched attacks against state officials in Ingushetia, Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria over the past three days, while Chechnya saw its first suicide bombing in three years. A Russian soldier and a civilian were killed in the attack.


The escalation comes amid growing signs of local anger that while Russia has backed the right of self-determination for the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Ingushetia, separatism in the Russian Caucasus has been brutally crushed.


But it is Ingushetia, where the population has long been at odds with its Ossetian neighbours, that is prompting the greatest concern among observers and western diplomats.


Russian opposition newspapers have claimed that up to 1,200 Ingush police officers have resigned their jobs in protest at the war in South Ossetia, creating a power vacuum that could allow the insurgency to flourish.


Anger has particularly grown since Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, recognised the independence of South Ossetia last week. Many Ingush fear that could lead to the unification of South Ossetia, which lies in Georgia, and North Ossetia, which lies in Russia.


Ingushetia and North Ossetia fought a brief war in 1992, which claimed some 600 lives, over control of a slither of territory called Prigorodny which had come under Ossetian occupation after Stalin deported the entire Ingush population in 1944.


Regional experts say that a desire for separatism is now spreading from radical insurgents to Ingushetia's more moderate underground opposition.


Mr Yevloyev's death could act as a catalyst for opposition against regional head Murat Zyazikov, a former KGB officer and close ally of Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.


The journalist, who was also one of Ingushetia's best known opposition figures, was arrested at an airport near the Ingush capital Nazran. Shortly after his detention, his body, bearing a single bullet wound to the temple, was thrown out of a police car.


Ingush officials passed off the death as an accident, but the angry reaction from opposition activists suggested not all believed that - especially as Mr Zyazikov had been on the same flight as the dead journalist.


Human rights activists have accused My Zyazikov's administration, seen by Ingush hardliners as a puppet of the Kremlin, of seeking to crush the insurgency through a mixture of abductions and extra-judicial executions.


According to the Caucasus Times, Mr Yevloyev had just begun preparing a petition to call for Ingushetia's independence.


For the first time yesterday, moderate opposition figures in the republic said they believe, in light of their colleague's death, secession from Russia was the only option left for Ingushetia.


"We must ask Europe or America to separate us from Russia," said Magomed Khazbiyev, an opposition activist who has led a campaign demanding Mr Zyazivkov's resignation.
That call was echoed by another unrecognized group, the People's Parliament of Ingushetia Mekhk-Kkhel.

[American Patriot]

Divide and capitalise: Russia exploits a limp EU summit on the Georgian crisis
The Times ^ | 9/2/2008 | Bronwen Maddox European Union countries agreed yesterday to send Georgia one of the kinds of help it most wants: hundreds of observers to monitor Russia’s compliance with the supposed ceasefire around the two disputed provinces.


Otherwise, the summit was limp, as expected, reflecting the failure of the EU to bridge the rift between Germany, an advocate of not provoking Russia, and Britain, (finally) arguing that it should give more help.


If there is a useful side to that flight to ambiguity, it is that this is exactly the debate that the EU ought to be having (more important and invigorating than its wrangles about its constitution). The peaceful folding-in to the EU of ten former Soviet bloc countries in the brief 17 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is an astonishing phenomenon. It is no surprise that the end of the Soviet Union left ragged edges – countries divided about whether to join the West – and that is what we are seeing now, as well as Russia’s bitterness about the loss of empire.


That is why the EU needs to have a view of its approach to Russia. The cost of pretending to have it both ways has been clear since the Nato summit in Bucharest in April. Nato’s pledge to Georgia and Ukraine – that they would definitely become members someday but that they could not start the actual process of trying to clear the membership hurdles – told Russia that Nato was not prepared to make real commitments.


British ministers maintain that the Bucharest pledge was really better than allowing membership talks to start, but this is ludicrous. Georgian officials argue that the grand but vacuous promise gave Russia the green light to act as it did, and they have a point.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...

[American Patriot]

'Paper tiger' EU sends observers to Georgia to check troops withdrawn
The Times ^ | 9/2/2008 | David Charter and Rory Watson in Brussels

EU leaders shied away from imposing sanctions on Russia last night after President Sarkozy of France received the personal assurance of his Russian counterpart that he would finally withdraw troops from Georgia.

Speaking after an emergency EU summit on the Georgian crisis Mr Sarkozy, whose country holds the EU presidency, defended Europe’s soft approach by insisting that a punitive or military response would simply have set the EU and Russia on the path to a new Cold War.

The 27 leaders agreed to postpone long-running trade and aid talks with Moscow until it withdraws its troops, which it has promised to do on numerous occasions. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said that Mr Sarkozy was assured by Dimitri Medvedev, the Russian President, that he would meet the peace plan terms.

Russian leaders gave warning that sanctions would do more harm than good. Russia argues that it is justified in deploying troops in a buffer zone beyond Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Georgian territories that Moscow has recognised as independent.

Answering accusations that the lack of tough action made the EU a paper tiger, Mr Sarkozy said: “It is a paper tiger which negotiates a ceasefire, which gets a partial withdrawal and is the only body which can solve the situation and is able to help Georgia.

“We do not want to create tension. We do not want to be flexing our muscles talking about sanctions and counter-sanctions. Who would stand to gain from that? Nobody.”

Gordon Brown won support from Ms Merkel, as well as Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, and the leaders of the Baltic states, for a concrete demonstration of EU anger at Russia’s military aggression by putting negotiations on a new EU-Russia Partnership agreement on hold.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...

[American Patriot]

September 02, 2008, 7:00 a.m.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...YzZjQ4Nzk2NWI=
Another Rumor of War
Meanwhile, in Iran . . .

By James S. Robbins


A report in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, picked up in the Jerusalem Post and Tehran Times, states that members of the Dutch intelligence service AIVD conducting infiltration and espionage against the Iranian nuclear program have been pulled from their positions because they believe that a U.S. attack on Iranian WMD targets is imminent.


The Dutch? Anti-Iranian infiltration and espionage? Who knew? Way to go guys, seriously. Respect.

Couple that with a recent report that the government of Israel has decided that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear-weapons capability, and will take action as necessary. The latter story is interesting because this has ostensibly been U.S. policy for several years. In his 2002 State of the Union address President Bush stated, “The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” In June 2003 he said more specifically that the United States “will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon” by Iran. In February 2006 he stated, “The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” and in October 2007 the vice president said, “The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Check the language. Not permit, not tolerate, not allow. It implies that Iran has no choice in the matter. If it looks like they are going to develop a nuclear capability, the U.S. will take action to prevent it.

Lately, this promised action has translated primarily into diplomatic initiatives. That seems somewhat at odds with the stated policy. If the U.S. government “preferred that Iran not” develop nuclear weapons, or “strongly objected” to their development, or something along those lines, then diplomacy would have a chance — either Iran would not develop a weapon, or we could issue a strong letter of disapproval after their first atomic test. A win-win.


But U.S. policy has been unequivocal. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. If they get them, apart from the strategic effects and other consequences, it will demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States might talk tough but ultimately lacks the will to take action. At that point America shrugs, admits defeat, and we are treated to a proliferation of white papers on the merits of nuclear deterrence. The rationalizations would be endless, and sometimes sincere, but the end result would be to signal a new level of U.S. impotence. It would say to the proliferators of the world, regardless of what the U.S. says, just go right ahead with what you are doing. Hand the Americans a fait accompli. They’ll back down. At that point they won’t have a choice.

The conventional wisdom has been that there are two clocks running in Iran, one for the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the other for some form of pro-democratic, perhaps pro-west regime change. The hope has been that clock number two outpaces clock number one, and the problem is solved. (Set aside for the moment the possibility that even a democratic Iran might want a nuclear capability, just as the democracies of India and (at the time) Pakistan did.) There is no particular sign that freedom is set to ring in Tehran. Yet indications continue to emerge that the nuclear clock keeps ticking. Even the much publicized 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which threw cold water on the notion of taking action against Iran, stated that Tehran would technically be capable of producing a nuclear weapon in the 2010-2015 time frame — i.e., starting the year after next. And it is worth noting that such timelines have always consistently overestimated the amount of time needed to produce nuclear weapons — which is why nuclear tests always come as a surprise.


In fact the “clock” metaphor is more useful for the Iranians, because they have a set date against which they should plan, namely the upcoming change in administrations. A new president, regardless of who it is, will not want to take military action against Iran as one of his first acts of office. That presents opportunities, but also a potential danger for Iran that the Bush administration will want to tie up loose ends before leaving Washington. So for the Iranians diplomacy is more important than ever. They have to hold out enough hope for progress to paralyze U.S. action until they get through the period of greatest risk. Plus if they could possibly speed their nuclear program up to the point where they could test a weapon on January 20, 2009, it would be a cutting riposte to events during the presidential transition day 28 years earlier.


Is an attack along the lines of that reported by De Telegraaf feasible? Critics say our forces are stretched thin, but not the air and naval strike assets that would be used in this type of limited operation. The targets would be hard to hit, but not impossible to take out. The Iranian nuclear program would be delayed, not destroyed — but isn’t delay better than just letting them go ahead? Iran might seek to escalate the crisis in a number of ways — an Iranian general recently said World War Three would break out while being a bit unclear on who would be on what side — but there is no scenario in which the U.S. would not be able to maintain escalation dominance. Iran can do many things to hurt the United States, its allies, and its interests — in fact is already active in Iraq and elsewhere. But Iran will have to calculate whether a demonstration of their unconventional power will be worth the risk of a full scale demonstration of U.S. conventional force. In this vein, witness Syria’s response to Israel’s raid on their nuclear facility last September. We’re still waiting for it.


I have no idea whether any of these reports of imminent action are true. But as the various clocks keep ticking, the strategic logic of active counter-proliferation against Iran becomes more compelling. The U.S. may act, Israel may act, or not. We will know soon enough, one way or the other.


— NRO contributor James S. Robbins is the director of the Intelligence Center at Trinity Washington, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point.
— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point. Robbins is also an NRO contributor.

[American Patriot]

Russia-Cuba ties worry U.S.


Email Picture

EPA

Igor Sechin, center, one of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's closest aides, walks through the historic center of Old Havana in late July. During the trip, Sechin met with Raul Castro in an event that was qualified by the local media as "cordial and friendly."


[COLOR=#333333 ! important]Amid tensions over Georgia, Moscow has been signaling that it wants to restore its relationship with Havana that included military and intelligence cooperation.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#999999 ! important]By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 1, 2008 [/COLOR]
WASHINGTON -- Amid rising tensions over Georgia, U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that Russia is moving to rebuild one of the most dangerous features of the old Soviet Union's security structure -- its alliance with Cuba.

Moscow has been signaling that it wants to restore a long relationship with Havana that included not only economic ties, but also military and intelligence cooperation. The relationship brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when Russia secretly installed nuclear missiles on the island.




Your Vote
Does the possibility of renewed alliances between Russia and Cuba concern you?

34.4 %


Yes
65.6 %


No

395 total responses




U.S. officials believe that Russian statements are partly bluster, intended to dissuade the United States and its allies from moving the NATO alliance and military equipment, including missile defense sites, closer to the Russian border. And some experts question how interested Cuba is in rebuilding close ties with Russia.

But at a time when Russia has intervened forcefully in Georgia and is extending the global reach of its rebuilt military, some senior officials fear it may not be only bluster.

Russia "has strategic ties to Cuba again, or at least, that's where they're going," a senior U.S. official said recently, speaking, like others, on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive implications of the assessments.

The officials said they doubted the Russians would risk stationing nuclear bombers on Cuba. But some believe that Moscow might seek to restore its once-energetic intelligence cooperation with Havana, and to resume limited military cooperation, possibly including refueling stops for aircraft and warships.

In the current environment, such contacts would make U.S. officials uneasy, serving as a reminder of a military relationship between Havana and Moscow that stretched from the Cuban Revolution in 1959 until a weakened, post-Soviet Russia finally closed a massive electronic intelligence complex in Lourdes near Havana in 2001.

One senior military officer said a return of Russian ships or planes could force additional U.S. deployments in the region. But the Bush administration and Pentagon declined to comment publicly on the implications.

"It is very Cold War retro," said a government official. "The topic could be reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis, and that is a chapter that people don't want to revisit."

The Russian Defense Ministry dismissed a report in the newspaper Izvestia in July that quoted an unidentified Russian official as saying the government intended to begin basing Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack and Tupolev Tu-95 Bear nuclear bombers in Cuba.

However, the report was taken seriously enough in Washington that Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the new Air Force chief of staff, said during his Senate confirmation hearing at the time that sending the bombers would cross a "red line in the sand."

Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained about Russia's increasing reliance on its military to remind the world of its power. She criticized Russia's military advance into Georgia, a former Soviet republic, and its increasingly frequent patrols by long-range nuclear bombers in U.S.- and NATO-patrolled ocean lanes near northern Europe, Alaska and elsewhere.

As it rebuilds forces that withered during the impoverished 1990s, Russia also has been looking for new air and naval bases far from home. It is negotiating with Syria to resume use of naval bases in Tartus and Latakia, Russian officials have said. There has also been talk in Moscow of approaching Vietnam about using Cam Ranh Bay.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in late July sent one of his closest aides, Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, and a large delegation to meet with Cuban President Raul Castro. The meeting was primarily about economic cooperation, including possible oil exploration off Cuba. But Russian officials made it clear that they were exploring resumption of other aspects of the relationship as well.

Nikolai Patrushev, who is secretary of the Russian Security Council and former director of the FSB, the domestic successor agency to the KGB, met with the Cuban defense and interior ministers on the trip. Afterward, the council issued a statement saying that the two countries planned "consistent work to restore traditional relations in all areas of cooperation."

Afterward, Putin said, "We need to reestablish positions in Cuba and in other countries."

Some Russian analysts remain skeptical of the Kremlin's intentions, seeing the whispers of renewed military activity in Cuba as a tactic meant to rattle the United States.

Russian officials "understand that the restoration of even an intelligence-gathering base in Lourdes would be a declaration of a new Cold War on the part of Russia," said Alexander Golts, defense analyst with the online publication Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "The Kremlin will never do it, because they cannot afford it."

Despite talk of a return to the Cold War, Golts noted, Russia spends 2.7% of its gross domestic product on defense -- unlike the Soviet Union, which at the height of the Cold War spent 40%.

Although several Bush administration officials who have been hawkish on Russia say they find the Cuba ties worrisome, other U.S. officials say the threat should not be overstated.

"The old days are gone, and people need to keep a sense of perspective," said one U.S. official. "That said, I wouldn't assume these [Cuban and Russian intelligence] services never talk to each other."

That official said Cuban intelligence activities posed a concern even without rekindled Russian ties.

"They were and are aggressive on their own," he said. "If anything, the years that have passed since the end of the Soviet Union have convinced the Cubans that, when it comes to intelligence, they themselves are the only people on whom they can rely."

Since becoming president, Raul Castro has generally avoided provoking the United States, said Brian Latell, a former CIA analyst and Cuba specialist. Latell said he was skeptical that Castro would want to be caught in the middle of the rekindled U.S.-Russian rivalry.

"Why go out on a limb for Putin?" asked Latell, who has written a book, "After Fidel," about Cuba's political transition. "I'm not sure I can discern why the Cubans would want to get themselves wrapped around these great power issues."

Latell added, though, that he was ready to believe that the Cubans would cooperate on intelligence and would resume limited military contacts, such as refueling of aircraft.

The 28-square-mile Russian electronic surveillance complex at Lourdes was Russia's largest such base overseas, and reportedly had as many as 1,500 Russian engineers, technicians and military personnel working there. Less than 100 miles from Key West, Fla., its position made it ideal for snooping on the U.S.

The Russian government ended its involvement there in 2001 because of its high cost as well as the strain it exerted on U.S.-Russian relations.

Mark Hackard, assistant director of the Nixon Center in Washington, said Russia's moves grew out of its sense that, although it has given ground on security again and again since the 1990s, it has received little in return from the United States and its allies. Yet, there are limits to how far the Russians will extend their military, he said.

"They're not seeking a new superpower standoff around the world," Hackard said. "They do want primacy in the former Soviet sphere."

paul.richter@latimes.com

Times staff writers Julian E. Barnes in Washington and Megan K. Stack in Moscow contributed to this report.

[American Patriot]

US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba
Jul 22 02:05 PM US/Eastern

Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, a top US air force officer warned on Tuesday.

"If they did I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," said General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff.

He was referring to a Russian news report that said the military is thinking of flying long-range bombers to Cuba on a regular basis.

It was unclear from the report whether that would involve permanent basing of nuclear bombers in Cuba, or just use of the island as a refueling stop.

In his confirmation hearing to become the air force's chief of staff, Schwartz was asked what he would recommend if Russia were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.

"I would certainly offer the best military advice that we engage the Russians not to pursue that approach," he said.

The newspaper Iszvestia on Monday cited an unnamed senior Russian air force official in Moscow as saying that Russia may start regular flights by long-range bombers to Cuba in response to US plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe.

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the Russian report because there had been no "official response from the Russian government."

Conducting long-range bomber patrol to Cuba would signal a reawakening of military cooperation by former Cold War allies Moscow and Havana, and recall the 1962 missile crisis that brought Washington and Moscow to the brink of war.

Over the past year, Russia already has revived long-range strategic bomber patrols in the Pacific and north Atlantic.

The Russian moves come amid rising tensions over the US missile defense plans, and warnings by Moscow that it will be forced them to counter them militarily.

Until now, US officials have shrugged off the stepped up Russian military activity, while insisting that a radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors it plans to install in Poland pose no threat to Russia.

White House press secretary Dana Perino recalled assurances US President George W. Bush offered Russian President Dmitry Medvedev two weeks ago at a G8 summit.

"The president repeated that our missile defense system should not be seen as a threat to Russia, we want to actually work with the Russians to design a system that Russia, and Europe and the United States could work on together as equal partners and we'll continue to do that," she said.

"We seek strategic cooperation with the Russians. We want to work with them on preventing missiles from rogue nations like Iran from threatening our friends and allies," said Perino.

But Medvedev has warned that the missile defense project worsens regional security and will force Moscow to consider counter-measures.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ukraine Leader Claims 'Coup' Ahead of Cheney Visit

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko claimed Wednesday he was the victim of a "coup" attempt after parliament approved laws trimming presidential powers ahead of a visit by US Vice President Dick Cheney.

"A political and constitutional coup d'etat has started in the parliament," Yushchenko said in a televised speech on Wednesday, a day after parliament passed laws that would reduce his powers and make it easier to impeach him.

Members of parliament from the president's Our Ukraine party pulled out of the ruling coalition with Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's party after her Tymoshenko Bloc and the pro-Moscow opposition approved the laws.

Yushchenko described the vote as a bid to establish a "dictatorship of the prime minister."

Tymoshenko, Yushchenko's partner in the 2004 "Orange Revolution," said the governing coalition had been "destroyed" thanks to the president, adding however that the government would stay in place for now.

The crisis comes ahead of a presidential election due in 2009 or 2010, which is expected to pit Yushchenko against both Tymoshenko and the leader of the pro-Russian Regions Party, Viktor Yanukovich.

In a challenge to the prime minister, Yushchenko threatened to dissolve the parliament and call early elections if a new coalition between the Tymoshenko Bloc and the pro-Moscow opposition was not formed within 30 days.

"De facto, a new parliamentary coalition has been created," Yushchenko said referring to the Tymoshenko Bloc's decision to vote with the Regions Party.

Tymoshenko has previously ruled out the possibility of a coalition between her pro-Western party and the pro-Russian Regions Party, a move that analysts say could severely undermine her political base.

Yushchenko appeared to warn against Moscow's influence, saying: "The Tymoshenko Bloc has accepted union with the Regions Party and the Communists. The basis of this formation is not Ukrainian. I underline not Ukrainian."

The political crisis in Ukraine comes amid worsening relations with Russia over its conflict last month with Georgia, a key US ally in the region like Ukraine and a fellow aspirant to join NATO.

The decision by lawmakers from Yushchenko's party to pull out of the coalition would come into force in 10 days if sustained. It was approved on Wednesday by a majority of 39 out of the party's 72 deputies in the parliament.

Despite sharing his pro-Western political goals including accession to NATO and the European Union, Tymoshenko has often been sharply at odds with the president and there is intense personal rivalry between the two.

The sudden flare-up came a day ahead of a planned visit to Kiev by Cheney, a trip seen as a show of Washington's backing for the pro-Western policy course pursued by Yushchenko, often against strong domestic opposition.

Cheney arrived earlier Wednesday in ex-Soviet Azerbaijan and was due to meet Thursday in Tbilisi with Georgia's US-backed president, Mikheil Saakashvili, whom Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has declared a "political corpse."

In a sign of deepening divisions in Ukraine, the governing coalition on Tuesday also failed to agree a joint declaration on the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

Yushchenko recently accused Tymoshenko of "high treason and political corruption" for allegedly siding with Moscow over the conflict with Georgia last month, a charge she has denied.

Tymoshenko abstained from a vote in Ukraine's Security Council last month imposing restrictions on the movements of Russia's Black Sea fleet, which is based in southern Ukraine and was involved in military action against Georgia.

European officials including French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn have warned Ukraine could be the next target of political pressure from Russia in its mounting stand-off with the West.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ukraine's Pro-Western Government on Brink of Collapse

The party of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko decided to quit the pro-Western governing coalition on Wednesday, plunging Ukraine into a new political crisis as relations with Russia worsened.

Leaders of Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party were due to announce their decision officially to parliament at around 0700 GMT and were expected to hold talks with the president starting from 0900 GMT.

The decision would come into force in 10 days if maintained. It was approved by a narrow majority of 39 out of the party's 72 deputies in the parliament, Ukrainian media reported, citing officials.

The move came in response to the adoption on Tuesday of a series of laws that would weaken the powers of the president, laws initiated by the pro-Russian opposition in league with the Tymoshenko Bloc.

The Tymoshenko Bloc is headed by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who is sharply at odds with the president, despite broadly sharing his pro-Western political goals.

In a heated parliament session on Tuesday, the Ukrainian president's party stormed out of the chamber in protest at the adoption of the laws, which would also ease the rules for impeaching the president, Ukrainian media reported.

In a sign of deepening divisions, the ruling coalition on Tuesday also failed to agree a joint declaration about the war between Russia and Georgia, which like Ukraine is bidding to join NATO and the European Union.

Yushchenko has accused Tymoshenko of "high treason and political corruption" for allegedly siding with Moscow over the conflict in Georgia last month, a charge she has denied.

If the pro-Western allies Our Ukraine and Tymoshenko Bloc do not get back together and the decision to split comes into effect, members of parliament would have a further 30 days to form another coalition government.

The president would have the right to dissolve parliament if talks failed.

Tymoshenko has long had rocky relations with Yushchenko despite their alliance in the peaceful protests known as the Orange Revolution of 2004.

She is believed to be planning to run against Yushchenko for president in elections due in 2009 or 2010.

Tymoshenko abstained from a vote in Ukraine's Security Council last month imposing restrictions on the movements of Russia's Black Sea fleet, which is based in southern Ukraine and was involved in military action against Georgia.

European officials including French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn have warned Ukraine could be the next target of political pressure from Russia in its mounting stand-off with the West.

US Vice President Dick Cheney was due to visit Kiev this week as part of a four-nation tour to support US allies Georgia and Ukraine. Cheney arrived in oil-rich Azerbaijan on Wednesday at the start of his tour.

I think the Russians are demonstrating that their covert actions are just as effective as their overt actions.

[American Patriot]

Brink of collapse?

Wow... that's suddenly "new".... wtf?

[American Patriot]

Ukraine coalition collapses under Russian pressure
The Telegraph ^

Ukraine's ruling coalition collapsed last night under the weight of Russian pressure designed to weaken Western allies in the former Soviet Union.

President Victor Yushchenko angrily denounced his former ally, the Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko for siding with the pro-Russian opposition in a series of parliamentary votes.

"Yesterday, a political and constitutional coup began in parliament," he said. "I consider the events in the Ukrainian parliament a formal beginning of the formation of a new parliamentary coalition."

In a televised address to the nation after his political party withdrew from the government, Mr Yushchenko threatened to call an election within two months.

His comments had greater impact because they came a day before the US vice president Dick Cheney was scheduled to arrive in Kiev to shore up Western allies threatened by Russia.

"I will use my right to dismiss parliament and announce early elections," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

[American Patriot]

Cheney supports NATO membership for Georgia
International Herald Tribune ^ | Published: September 4, 2008 | By Steven Lee Myers and Alan Cowell

...Cheney declared: "After your nation won its freedom in the Rose Revolution, America came to the aid of this courageous young democracy. We are doing so again, as you work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory, and an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force that has been universally condemned by the free world."

He said he had assured the Georgian leader that he "can count on continued support and assistance from the United States."

"I assured the president as well of my country's strong commitment to Georgia's territorial integrity. Georgia has that right, just as it has the right to build stronger ties to friends in Europe and across the Atlantic."

"Russia's actions have cast grave doubts on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner, not just in Georgia, but across this region and indeed throughout the international system," Cheney said.

"Georgia will be in our alliance. NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a threat to no one."

His words of support for Saakashvili placed him on a direct collision course with Russia's leaders who have labeled the Georgian president a "political corpse" and who have made clear that they see Georgia's membership of NATO as intolerable.

(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...

[American Patriot]

Putin Clinches Deal for Uzbek Pipeline
Moscow Times ^ | September 3 2008 | Anatoly Medetsky

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Tuesday secured agreement from Uzbekistan to start building a new gas pipeline to Russia in a deal that bolsters Moscow's sway over Central Asian energy supplies.

In the wake of Russia's war with Georgia, it also strengthens Moscow's hand with the European Union, which has been looking to secure energy supplies that bypass Russia.

Uzbek President Islam Karimov, after meeting with Putin in Tashkent on Tuesday, announced that the new pipeline would carry up to 30 billion cubic meters of gas from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, boosting Russian imports by 50 percent.

Gazprom will set up a joint venture with Uzbekneftegaz to construct the Uzbek leg of the pipeline along the existing transit route that begins in Turkmenistan and runs through Kazakhstan before reaching Russia, the Russian company said in a statement.

The four countries adopted a plan in May 2007 to expand that route, and Uzbekistan, which is sandwiched between Turkmenistan to the south and Kazakhstan to the north, was the first Tuesday to move ahead with the plan.

"We are interested in this both in commercial terms and as part of the responsibilities that we have as Russia's ally," Karimov said, Interfax reported.

The existing transit pipelines in the area, known as the Central Asia-Center and Central Asia-Urals pipelines, have the capacity for 54 bcm, Karimov said. Putin said Turkmen and Uzbek export potential was growing.

"We have a common interest in implementing this project," he said of the effort to expand the pipelines.

Russia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan plan a separate pipeline that would also take Turkmen and Kazakh gas north to Russia. That pipeline would transport 20 bcm, and construction is scheduled to start late this year or early next year, Gazprom said on its web site.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has been among the strongest European critics of Russia's military actions in Georgia, on Sunday called for an end to the "energy stranglehold" of Europe by Russia in a commentary in The Observer.

One prospect to diversify away from Russia as an energy supplier would be to insist on building the Nabucco pipeline, from Turkey through the Balkans, which would compete for resources from the same area where Russia is making progress.

With their energy exports, the Central Asian nations are making an effort to balance the geopolitical interests of the West with those of Russia and another key regional player, China. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have not ruled out a westward route across the Caspian Sea that would bypass Russia. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan also entertain plans to send some of their gas eastward to China.

Russia's deal with Uzbekistan was not specifically planned to send a signal to the European Union, which issued stern warnings to Russia on Monday over its use of force in Georgia last month, said Pavel Baev, an energy expert at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo. But it does underline the poor feasibility of the Nabucco pipeline, which has been scrambling for resources, he said.

By winning Uzbekistan's agreement on the pipeline, Russia wants to show that it makes most sense as a conduit between Central Asian energy riches and Europe, said Leonid Grigoryev, president of the Energy and Finance Institute, a Moscow think tank.

On Tuesday, Russia also approved a formula that will give Uzbekistan a "European price" for the gas that it sells to Gazprom, Putin and Gazprom said. Gazprom has yet to formulate a specific price for gas imports from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. It re-exports the Central Asian gas to Ukraine.

Gazprom and LUKoil, Russia's second-largest oil producer, are carrying out gas production and exploration projects in Uzbekistan. LUKoil is planning to invest $5 billion over the next seven years to bring gas production there to 12 bcm, company president Vagit Alekperov confirmed in Tashkent on Tuesday.

Uzbekistan also agreed to buy weapons from Russia and cooperate on space exploration.

[American Patriot]

Ukraine's leader accuses opponents of coup attempt

Wed Sep 3, 6:03 AM ET

KIEV, Ukraine - Ukraine's president is accusing his rival prime minister and opposition parties of attempting a constitutional coup.
ADVERTISEMENT

President Viktor Yushchenko's long-troubled government is on the verge of collapse after his allies in parliament pulled out of the ruling coalition with his Our Ukraine party.

Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's party joined the opposition also in passing a law Tuesday curbing presidential powers and boosting those of the premier.

Yushchenko said in a live national broadcast Wednesday that the move a day earlier amounted to "a political and constitutional coup."

He said a new governing coalition should be formed.

[American Patriot]

Putin vows 'an answer' to NATO ships near Georgia

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 2, 3:36 PM ET

MOSCOW - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia will respond calmly to an increase in NATO ships in the Black Sea in the aftermath of the short war with Georgia, but promised that "there will be an answer."

Meanwhile, President Dmitry Medvedev sternly warned the West that it would lose more than Moscow would if it tried to punish Russia with sanctions over the war with Georgia.

Russia has repeatedly complained that NATO has too many warships in the Black Sea. Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said Tuesday that currently there are two U.S., one Polish, one Spanish and one German ship there.

"We don't understand what American ships are doing on the Georgian shores, but this is a question of taste, it's a decision by our American colleagues," Putin reportedly said. "The second question is why the humanitarian aid is being delivered on naval vessels armed with the newest rocket systems."

Russia's reaction to NATO ships "will be calm, without any sort of hysteria. But of course, there will be an answer," Interfax quoted Putin as saying during a visit to Uzbekistan.

Asked by exactly what measures Russia would take in response to NATO ships in the Black Sea, Putin was quoted as answering, "You'll see."

As if to emphasize the country's strength — its control over a growing percentage of European energy supplies — Putin traveled to Uzbekistan to announce a deal that would tighten Russia's hand on Central Asian energy exports to the West.

In an interview with Italy's RAI television broadcast Tuesday, Medvedev said that Russia doesn't fear expulsion from the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations.

"The G-8 will be practically unable to function without Russia, because it can make decisions only if they reflect the opinion of top global economies and leading political players of the world," Medvedev said. "That's why we don't fear being expelled from the G-8."

Presidential candidate John McCain is among those who called for Russia's expulsion from the elite club of the world's richest countries.

Medvedev also warned that NATO would suffer more than Russia if its ties with Moscow were severed.

"We don't see anything dramatic or difficult about suspending our relations if that's the wish of our partners," Medvedev said. "But I think that our partners will lose more from that."

NATO nations depend on Russia as a transit route for supplies going to the alliance's troops in Afghanistan.

At a summit Monday, the European Union issued a declaration saying Russia was violating the terms of its cease-fire with Georgia. It warned that talks on a political and economic agreement with the Kremlin would be postponed unless Russian troops pulled back from positions in Georgia.

Britain and eastern European nations held out for a tougher line, but Europe's dependence on Russian oil and natural gas deterred stronger sanctions.

Russia supplies the EU with a third of its oil and 40 percent of its natural gas — a dependence that the EU's administrative body says will rise significantly in the future.

Putin announced Tuesday that Russia and Uzbekistan will build a new natural gas pipeline that will pump Turkmen and Uzbek gas into Russia's pipeline system, which Russia will re-export to Europe.

The project, which has been under discussions for several months, will strengthen Moscow's hold over Central Asian gas and undermine Western-backed efforts for a rival trans-Caspian route.

[American Patriot]

Georgia mobilizes commando units near S.Ossetia - Russian military
RIA (Russia) ^ | 19:06 | 02/ 09/ 2008

MOSCOW, September 2 (RIA Novosti) - Georgia is mobilizing commando units near its border with South Ossetia, a senior Russian military official said on Tuesday.

Russia officially recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states on August 26, saying the move was needed to protect the regions after Georgia's August 8 attack on South Ossetia.

"According to our information, Georgian security forces are trying to restore their [military] presence in Georgian populated villages in South Ossetia. With this aim, Georgia is mobilizing its special forces from the interior and defense ministries near the administrative border with South Ossetia," Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, said.

He also said that Russia had deployed 19 peacekeeping observation posts in South Ossetia to provide security and stability in the republic, adding that South Ossetian military detachments were also mobilizing near the border to counter any possible Georgian attacks.

Georgia attacked South Ossetia on August 8 in an attempt to regain control over the republic, which split from Tbilisi in the early 1990s. Most people living in South Ossetia have Russian citizenship and Moscow subsequently launched an operation to "force Georgia to accept peace." The operation was concluded on August 12.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Sunday that Russian support for South Ossetia and Abkhazia envisaged military as well as economic assistance.

[American Patriot]

Putin Promises 'An Answer' to NATO Ships Near Georgia
News Room America ^ | 2008-09-02 02:05pm

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday Russia would calmly respond the presence of NATO warships in the Black Sea that arrived there after the short war between his country and neighboring Georgia, but nonetheless promised "there will be an answer."

Currently there are two U.S., one Polish, one Spanish and one German ship in the Black Sea. Shortly after a Russian-Georgian cease-fire, the NATO flotilla arrived in the region to deliver humanitarian aid to ally Georgia.

Foreign Ministry official Andrei Nesterenko and others say the U.S. could be delivering weapons to the Georgian government under the guise of humanitarian aid.

"We don't understand what American ships are doing on the Georgian shores, but this is a question of taste, it's a decision by our American colleagues," he reportedly said. "The second question is why the humanitarian aid is being delivered on naval vessels armed with the newest rocket systems."

Putin said Russia's reaction to NATO ships "will be calm, without any sort of hysteria. But of course, there will be an answer," Interfax quoted him as saying during a visit to Uzbekistan.

[Backstop]

Putin said Russia's reaction to NATO ships "will be calm, without any sort of hysteria. But of course, there will be an answer," Interfax quoted him as saying during a visit to Uzbekistan.

Well now that will be interesting.