Europe must stop being so submissive to US says Brussels Think Tank

In a week when European affairs are prominent, a study by an influential Brussels think tank suggests the EU is going about things the wrong way. The Europeans must stop being so submissive, they must present a united front on foreign policy and they must work toward a "post-American" state of affairs, the study says.

more...

Federalists welcome Irish Completion of Democratic Treaty Process

The Irish people have given their decisive backing to the Lisbon treaty. This vote does credit to all those political forces in Ireland which have had to combat, over many months, the lies and distortions about the European project peddled by nationalists and europhobes.

The vote means that Irish voices will continue to be influential in the politics of the EU. The common interest of all Europe will always have an Irishness about it.

Ireland has clearly and decisively added its weight to the building of a stronger, more effective and more democratic European Union.

Now all 27 countries have taken their own democratic decisions to back EU reform. No further delay can be tolerated in bringing the treaty into force as quickly and efficiently as possible. It would be the height of folly for Mr Vaclav Klaus to block the entry into force of the treaty. One does not expect the President of the Czech Republic to behave like a vexatious litigant.

The world waits while the European Union concludes its internal constitutional controversies. Lisbon in force will make the EU strong in world affairs and provide Europe’s states and citizens with good government of a federal character. Let’s get on with the job.

UEF Belgium

South Ossetians celebrate Independence

Despite the lunatic behaviour of Georgia's Saakashvili (eg. chewing his own tie on TV) the servile MSM of the West is obliged to keep up the pretence that this nutcase rules over a democratic country. Well, it must be democratic because the US, Britain and NATO supports it, mustn't it? Here's another revealing essay on the subject by Peter Lavelle of Russia Today:

Where is the media now?
September 10, 2008

Have you noticed or not noticed something about Western media coverage of Russia since the Medvedev-Sarkozy deal? Well I have – there hasn’t been much. And at a time in which seeing the peace process move forward is of up-most importance. It would appear the “commentariat” (which means most of Western mainstream TV and print media) much prefers stories that show Russia in the worst possible light. When Russia constructively works to establish peace and security in its own backyard, in tandem with the EU, the commentariat loses interest.

Why does this happen? The reasons seem obvious to me.

As far as the commentariat is concerned, if Russia gets something positive out of negotiations settling the South Caucasian crisis something is wrong. The conclusion drawn is either the EU, for example, screwed up or Russia is up to no good. It is part of the commentariat’s gospel of faith that Russia should not be allowed to have ANY national security interests. And if Russia disagrees with the West, it is because Russia is against “democracy,” “liberal values,” and other ideological principles the West hides behind to promote its geopolitical interests at the expense others. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, but West’s media is becoming more Soviet with every passing day.

When Russia claims it is protecting its national security interests, the commentariat automatically translate anything Moscow does into “hostility,” “aggression,” and bullying.” What was Russia supposed to do when Saakashvili embarked upon his genocidal campaign against South Ossetia? Was it supposed to stand on the sidelines and telephone the UN for a Security Council meeting? Well, that’s what the commentariat was probably hoping – hoping that Russia would cave into Western sponsored aggression. The storyline the commentariat wanted to write was “Russian occupiers rightly pushed out of Georgian territory.” They same copy probably would have never mentioned ethnic cleansing committed against the South Ossetian people. Well, Russian peacekeepers and military DID step in and foiled a humanitarian catastrophe – and the commentariat has demonized Russia every since. The commentariat is on the wrong side of morality and common decency – not to mention the obligations of responsible media.

Then there is the issue of the main villain in this plot – Mikhail Saakashvili. It is appalling how the commentariat protects him. The US State Department is on the defensive recalling its close ties with him and Georgia’s crippled political opposition (because of Saakashvili authoritarian tendencies) now openly demands to know why Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity have been compromised. The commentariat doesn’t have the moral fortitude to even make a pretense toward serving the public good by really questioning why the West continues to support “the beacon of democracy in the Caucuses.”

All of this strikes me as quite strange and an obvious double-standard. Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic proved to be quite popular for the commentariat to demonize (and maybe for good reason). However, Saakashvili strikes me as part of that crowd who should be subject to intense scrutiny as well. But the commentariat will never admit this or do what is right. Milosevic and Karadzic were not puppets or supporters of the West, but Saakashvili is. This is why Saakashvili is getting a free pass. Again, this is a disgrace and a dereliction of duty on the part of Western media.

I can only guess when the commentariat will again consider Russia – like when claiming Russia “again fails to fulfill its ceasefire commitments.” I bet you that this will never be said about the Georgian side. Saying as much doesn’t sell.

Peter Lavelle

The War Which Will Help McCain Win
Yuri Baranchik, Strategic Culture Foundation

Georgia has done a great job as the proving ground during the five-day war. With the help of this war, those who are promoting the Republican nominee in the US presidential race have found out all they needed to know.

It was a part of Washington's plan that Russia would respond resolutely to the US-prepared Georgian incursion into South Ossetia. As a result of Russia's repelling the aggression, the US Administration obtained the information it needed to analyze the consequences of future armed conflicts in the post-Soviet space and Senator J. McCain's chances to become the next US President got a real boost. Besides, Washington had the opportunity to probe into the positions of Europe (obviously, the EU would not follow the US in the case of serious tensions with Russia) and China (which would rather not intervene).

In the US, practically all the benefits from the situation which emerged due to the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia were drawn by the Republicans, as the evolution of McCain's rating clearly shows. McCain was 7% behind his rival B. Obama by the early August but the gap began to shrink when the conflict in the Caucasus broke out, and by August 23 both presidential hopefuls had 47%. The process stopped at this point, though, as the war ended. Subsequently, Obama began to lead again – now he has 50% vs McCain's 42%.

In other words, the conflict in the Caucasus was provoked by the Republicans in the hope to gain advantages in the presidential campaign. The five-day war triggered exactly the electoral reaction they expected – it appeared at the moment that the US needed a President who would make a better military commander, and Vietnam-war veteran McCain seemed better fit for the role than his relatively young rival. The logic behind the voting on November 4, 2008 became completely obvious.

Thus, it takes a war for McCain to win. It takes more than just a small war which only made it possible for him to catch up with Obama. It has to be a serious one with an impressive death toll, and then the triumph of the Republican hawk on November 4 would be guaranteed. A war between the US and Iran would serve the purpose.

For the Republican elite which is ready to unleash a war with Iran for the sake of McCain's victory, what is at stake is not one but three presidential terms. Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin will have good starting positions in the 2014 presidential race. Republican politicians no longer worry about oil prices as the margin from the domestic sales of imported oil is theirs anyhow, and the financial crisis in the US simply cannot be prevented, so the main question at the moment is who is going to be at the helm during the crisis to reap the benefits stemming from the redistribution of the global and US domestic markets.

What have the Republicans already gained thanks to the military experiment in the Caucasus?

First, it transpired that Russia will react harshly to military expansion attempts in the post-Soviet space. Confronting a serious enemy in international politics is a situation generally advantageous from the Republican standpoint.

Secondly, it became clear that the EU as a whole is not a dependable partner for the US and the US must rely on bilateral ties with some of the EU countries (Great Britain, Poland).

Thirdly, China, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization would easily abandon Russia and opt for non-intervention.

Fourthly, a small country like Georgia cannot present a sufficiently big problem to paralyze Russia. The task would take involving Russia in two conflicts at once, hence the role of Ukraine. Making Ukraine a part of the “arrangement' would also be a way of punishing the defiant Europe by destabilizing its energy supply routes.

Currently there seems to be an informational lull, but the impression is perfunctory. A major war and the transfer of control from Bush to McCain in the situation of a massive armed conflict are of vital importance for the forces which advance McCain and hope to go on running the US for the next 12 years.

In this light, the likely scenario for the future is as follows:

New conflicts in the post-Soviet space will be organized with the help of the already outgoing US puppets Saakashvili and Yushchenko. The process will probably begin in Ukraine. Yushchenko will resort to the use of force against his opponents to amass power in his hands. Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is already targeted: she is under practically undisguised surveillance and will be interrogated by the prosecutor on September 11. The interrogation is likely to be followed by arrest, now or later. After it, Yushchenko will issue a decree introducing the presidential rule “until the situation normalizes”. The regime will be marked by a witch-hunting campaign with numerous provocations against politicians – and not only politicians – known for pro-Russian leanings. In case this would not be enough, provocations targeting Russian warships docked in Sevastopol and their personnel should be expected.

Since there are at least three influential political clans in Ukraine and the country is already being torn apart by President Yushchenko's irresponsible politics, by the early October a number of local conflicts will quickly evolve into a civil war (unless by that time Yushchenko gets arrested for treason instead). The result will be the disintegration of Ukraine.

This time, Russia will try to avoid getting directly involved in Ukraine's domestic conflict and limit its efforts to implicitly supporting pro-Russian forces in the Ukrainian elite as well as in the country's eastern regions and in the Crimea.

In case the situation in Ukraine remains under control, Russia is going to have a much greater potential to influence the international situation when the US strikes Iran. On the other hand, if the temperature of the conflict gets high and it spills beyond Ukraine's borders, Russia will have to fight for its interests as it did in the Caucasus.

Tentatively, Moscow will decide what to do about Ukraine by mid-October.

Following the developments, Saakashvil's thugs rearmed with the US assistance will get back into play after some rest in late October.

The US stock market will see a partial drop as the security of the energy transit routes from Russia to Europe will be affected and the global fuel prices will soar. The US population will panic and the neocons will frighten it further by pictures of “the global chaos” until the no-return point is reached.

By that time Russia will be confronted by a total information war.

In late October Cheney's political group will organize a provocation against the US of proportions comparable to those of September 11. The death toll will be high and Iran will be blamed. Several days prior to the November 4 elections, President Bush will declare another crusade in the name of democracy which will in practice mean a “pre-emptive” war against Iran.

Under the circumstances McCain will be a natural choice in the US as the leader capable of fighting the global terrorism and the rogue countries all the way to the logical completion.

Campaigning on the day of the elections may be prohibited, but McCain will do well without it. Media reports from conflict zones in Georgia, Ukraine, and Iran will be the background of the elections on November 4. The public will see Eurasia in flames and ask for a strong-handed US politics as the way to cope with the global chaos.

Early morning on November 5, McCain will declare himself as the winner determined to carry the light of democracy all over the world.

______________________________

SEE ALSO:

New crisis envelopes UkrainePresident threatens Ukraine with a state of emergency


The West's Phantom Pains

A Time for Europeans to Choose

As my regular readers will observe I am not only taking a Russia-friendly approach on my blogs but I am posting articles which are actively calling for the European Union to build and strengthen a rapport with the Russian Federation as a friend and partner of the EU.

Ex-chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder is right to see Russia's destiny to be with the European Union. Moreover, I would like to see the Russian Federation join the EU but recognise that to be a pipe-dream, at least for now. Firstly, the EU would feel threatened by the prospect of its huge neighbour swamping the rest and secondly, the US would never allow such a threat to its global, imperial pretensions to materialise.

The present danger that we face in Europe is not from Russia but from the continued trouble-making instigated by self-serving neocons ensconced in the White House and their errand-boys in Downing Street and the east European EU. These fifth-columnists are on the payroll of US imperialism and have no wish to see a united Europe developing a foreign policy independently of the US. They would rather that the EU take on a 'Euro-Atlantic' role together with Washington's cat's paw, NATO, under US global military-economic hegemony.

Any sane person would see that such an arrangement, the present status quo, not only results in the destabilising of European security --as we have seen recently result in the Caucasus-- but that it puts Europe under the constant threat of regional war exacerbated and provoked by US interference. Saakashvili is not the only madman to have wheedled his way into power in eastern Europe. There are other narrow-minded fanatics and opportunists, for example in Poland, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine, who would be more than willing to do the bidding of neocon bosses in the USA to bring destruction upon the heads of Europeans.

Some of us remember how the US planned its nuclear strategy in the 'eighties to include a European Theatre of War, meaning a 'limited' nuclear exchange with the old Soviet Union to include Europe and not the north American continent. That threat led to the growth of a huge Peace Movement in Europe and an equal loss of US popularity. It is ironic that the US appears to be free now to develop its First Strike nuclear doctrine of 'Compellance' with the installation of the ABM missile shield (more of that anon) with no such resistance from Europeans.

The ABM shield is certainly not popular either amongst the people of Poland or the Czech Republic where public opinion is simply being ignored by opportunist, pro-US governments. While crowing about the need for representative democracy amongst others, the Atlanticists' own record in that concern is, to say the least, deplorable. While ruthless imperialism by war criminals is ok for the Good Guys of the West where Might is Right the slightest sign of the East's approaching western atrocities is noisily denounced. It's all rather yawningly tiresome.

At least one Russian strategist is warning us that the conflict in the Caucasus is by no means over and that the mischief-makers in Washington DC will now be looking to cause a bigger crisis in the Ukraine which could lead to civil war and a confrontation between Russia and the West. As well as that, the ongoing threat of a surprise attack by the US proxy, Israel, with or without support from the US military during the time prior to the November presidential election, puts us all on a Red Alert.

The need for a collective, friendly European initiative towards Russia is now needed urgently. As France's Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, is reported to have said the other day in respect of our need to build a common alliance with Russia:

"We have to be together. The US have their own views, but we are living close to Russia. We need to develop our own policy, a neighbouring policy. We have to talk about our views of being close to Russia, a great country, a partner."

Kouchner, of course, is absolutely right. It's not surrender-monkey talk but that of the pragmatic, classic diplomacy for which while France is traditionally famed is anathema to the fanatics who still rule the dual-party, opposame dictatorship in the USA. Kouchner, all credit to him, speaks as a European, unlike the traitorous Brown and Miliband who will happily sell out the interests of their own people in order to ensure a continued political sodomy by their American minders.

It's time to cut the crap and deal with matters of survival. The hour is already very, very late. Homegrown Europhobes who continue to bleat about a 'fascist EU state' are their and our worst enemy. For all their talk about a loss of 'sovereign' powers the reality is that they would rather Britain forsake its European partners to continue as a vassal state of Washington DC, serving the warmongering interests of the notorious Anglo-American fraternities responsible for the deaths of 70 million Europeans in two world wars.

So which is it to be, fellow Britons? Will you, as Europeans, choose a common destiny where Europe and Russia coexist together in peace or are you prepared, through inaction, to allow your quisling leaders continue with a diabolical 'special relationship' which has caused so much bloodshed and misery on this war-torn Planet? The time to decide has come and the time for dithering is ended.

Which is it to be?

Rory Winter, Chimes of Freedom

EU wants truth about Ossetian war
Russia Today, 6 September 2008

EU Foreign Ministers are calling for an international inquest into identifying who was responsible for starting the conflict in South Ossetia.

They made the statement in the French city of Avignon, where they have gathered for an informal meeting.

The ministers said the EU needed to re-evaluate its foreign policy, particularly in relation to Washington. French FM Bernard Kouchner said U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was not America’s best ambassador

"The very fact that Americans didn't find anything else to support their failed ally - Mr. Saakashvili - other than sending Mr. Cheney to the region, who is incredibly unpopular in the world, who is associated with the war in Iraq, with all these neo-conservative, black-and-white visions of the world, who was accused of corruption - remember the Halliburton affair in Iraq. And if they wanted, if the Bush administration really wanted to consolidate the international community behind the United States in criticising Russia, I think they should find somebody else and not send Mr. Cheney," Kouchner said.

He also said the European Union should develop a joint approach to Russia.

"We have to be together. The U.S. have their own views, but we are living close to Russia. We need to develop our own policy, a neighbouring policy. We have to talk about our views of being close to Russia, a great country, a partner," he said.

The ministers are also debating when and under what terms civilian monitors will be sent to Georgia. EU is about to send 700 observers to the region.

A discussion on delivering humanitarian aid and restoring Georgia’s economy is also on the agenda.

The meeting comes just four days after an emergency summit in Brussels, at which EU leaders denounced Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

To watch the full press-conference of French FM, Bernard Kouchner, and other EU foreign ministers, please follow link.

International parliamentarians visit South Ossetia

Meanwhile, an international parliamentary delegation is already in South Ossetia. The main goal of the trip is to clarify the sequence of recent events in the region.

The group consists of members of parliament and public representatives from several European and CIS countries.

They will be joined by a delegation from Russia.

The officials will meet local residents, before heading to the neighbouring republic of North Ossetia, which hosted large numbers of refugees after the conflict.