Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Friday 24 July 2015

The European Union Times


Posted: 23 Jul 2015 10:51 AM PDT

While beefing up NATO’s military presence in Europe Washington should refrain from deploying more US nuclear weapons in EU countries, senior fellow of the Brookings Institution Steven Pifer said.
According to Steven Pifer, a senior fellow and director of the Arms Control Initiative at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., the Pentagon is currently considering re-deployment of US nuclear weapons in Europe in order to counterbalance Russia’s “threat.”
However, the expert considers such a move “not a good response,” claiming that it would be both useless and risky. According to Pifer, NATO should “maintain its lead in numbers of key conventional weapons” in Europe.
Pifer insisted that Russia poses a substantial threat to the European security order. Referring to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, that stipulated that “states should not use force to change borders,” the expert went so far as to falsely claim that Russia “seized Crimea militarily” in 2014. Pifer also stated that Russia is providing the Donbas independence supporters with “heavy weapons, leadership and Russian soldiers,” presenting no evidence to confirm his other false claim.
Curiously enough, the expert has seemingly forgotten that the US/NATO military aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, launched under false pretenses, had dramatically changed the borders of Europe.
Furthermore, the Brookings Institution expert presented an imaginary scenario of Russia’s attack against the Baltics, suggesting that the Kremlin may even use its non-strategic nuclear arsenal to take over the former Soviet Republics. This groundless allegation sounds especially fishy, since Pifer is referring to some unknown “classified Russian [military] doctrine” and some “considerable talk” in Russia about “‘de-escalating a conflict by using small, non-strategic nuclear weapons.”
“To be clear, this is not a likely scenario, nor is any Russian conventional military operation against a Baltic state,” the expert admitted, adding “But is the probability zero? Three years ago, few would have foreseen what the Russian military has done in Crimea and Donbass.”
Anyway, the latter still cannot be regarded as a convincing argument.
It should be noted that Pifer is not the only US expert who is beating the war drums about Russia’s phantom menace. The Pentagon report entitled 2015 National Military Strategy obviously targets Russia and China, experts say.
Meanwhile the US Joint Chief of Staff nominee General Joseph Dunford has put it clear: “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia.”
What are the true reasons for this warmongering?
The idea to re-deploy US nuclear weapons and to beef up NATO’s military presence in Europe emerged long ago. The Heritage Foundation, a well-known neocon mouthpiece, issued a report entitled “US Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Critical for Transatlantic Security” just before the infamous February coup in Ukraine, claiming that the US and NATO should maintain and increase its nuclear presence in Europe.
“According to Heritage Foundation estimates, the US should increase its number of deployed TNWs [tactical nuclear weapons] in Europe from a few hundred today to a minimum of 800 weapons so that it is able to meet requirements of the protect and defend nuclear targeting strategy with respect to the Russian TNWs. These weapons should be modernized for rapid delivery. Heritage’s approach also recognizes that the US targeting list will continually evolve in accordance with the threat to US interests and allies,” the report stated.
The article shows that the US “party of war” had considered Russia a potential rival long before the Ukrainian crisis spiraled out of control.
Some experts suggest that the US “needs” some sort of an “external threat” to maintain its political, economic and military leadership.
After the collapse of the USSR, the US’ longstanding rival, American conservative political scientist, adviser and academic Samuel P. Huntington wrote in 1997:
“Now, however, the end of the Cold War and social, intellectual, and demographic changes in American society have brought into question the validity and relevance of… traditional components of American identity.”
“Without a sure sense of national identity, Americans have become unable to define their national interests, and as a result subnational commercial interests and transnational and non-national ethnic interests have come to dominate foreign policy,” Huntington stressed.
It seems that the political scientist had nailed it: the US leadership has indeed become unable to define its true national interests, some experts acknowledge.
According to Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation Sherle R. Schwenninger, it was hardly in America’s national interests to oust the democratically elected Ukrainian president in 2014, or to alienate Russia and vex China, the US’ longstanding trading partner.
Washington’s sanctions policy against Moscow has only facilitated the creation of a new Eurasian alliance of Russia and China, which are now reshaping the economy of the region leaving the US out in the cold.
So, what forces are playing the first fiddle in Washington, urging the White House to drag the country into new overseas conflicts and increase its military spending? US investigative journalist Robert Parry is pointing the finger at US neocons, who “still dominate Official Washington’s inside-outside game.” The journalist underscored that wars have long become a profitable business for transnational corporations and their influential lobbyists in the White House.
“So, to understand the enduring influence of the neocons… you have to appreciate the money connections between the business of war and the business of selling war,” Parry remarked.
These wars cost trillions and trillions of dollars and multinational corporations including the US military-industrial complex benefit a lot from them.
Source
        
Posted: 23 Jul 2015 10:44 AM PDT


Shock footage validates Trump’s assertion on Mexicans bringing drugs into America.
As Donald Trump prepared to arrive in Laredo for a tour of the US border, Infowars captured astounding footage which shows illegals sneaking across the Rio Grande river before they frantically throw huge bags of drugs into a vehicle and swim back to Mexico.
Infowars reporters Joe Biggs and Josh Owens traveled to Laredo to cover Trump’s highly publicized visit. While recording footage of the Rio Grande river, which forms part of the Mexico–US border, Owens spotted illegals crossing the water in the distance on rafts and began to film.
The clip then shows an individual holding open the trunk of a red Ford Explorer before four illegals frantically run up carrying huge packs of what are almost certainly drugs before quickly throwing them into the vehicle and fleeing back towards Mexico.
The vehicle then drives into America as one of the smugglers glances back towards Biggs and Owens.
Biggs and Owens immediately had to go into hiding and remove the license plates on their vehicle because they were spotted by the cartel during filming.
The footage validates Trump’s assertion, for which he has been vilified for weeks, that illegal immigrants are bringing drugs into the United States.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said during his announcement that he would run for president. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump was invited to visit the border by the National Border Patrol Council and will arrive in Laredo later today, although the participation of Border Patrol agents was subsequently canceled after the national AFL-CIO-controlled union intervened.
Mexican drug cartels make up to $29 billion annually from U.S. drug sales, with 90% of the cocaine that enters America transiting through Mexico. The majority of marijuana and methamphetamines that are sold in the U.S. also come from Mexico.
The footage illustrates the porous nature of the US border and how easy it would be for ISIS terrorists – who reportedly have set up training bases nearby, to bring militants, weapons and explosives into America.
Source
        
Posted: 23 Jul 2015 10:35 AM PDT
European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager.
The European Union’s anti-trust regulator has filed complaints against six major Hollywood studios and Britain’s Sky TV pay channel for allegedly using movie licenses to block access to their content in the bloc’s 28 nations.
“We believe that this may be in breach of EU competition rules,” EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement on Thursday.
The EU body has sent statement of objections (SO) to Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros, all based in the US, as well as to Sky pay TV networks in Britain and Ireland.
“European consumers want to watch the pay-TV channels of their choice regardless of where they live or travel in the EU. Our EU economy Internet antitrust investigation shows that they cannot do this today,” said the statement.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive body, has vowed to break the current restrictions which deprive citizens across the European bloc of using the services of the digital media beyond national lines.
The EU statement said the US companies and the Sky UK “have bilaterally agreed to put in place contractual restrictions that prevent Sky UK from allowing EU consumers located elsewhere to access pay-TV services available in the UK and Ireland.”
Within the current framework, subscribers to the Sky TV effectively become deprived of accessing the channel’s offerings of films and TV series if they move outside Britain and Ireland.
The regulator said investigations are also underway about other major TV channels across Europe, including Canal Plus of France, Italy’s Sky Italia, Germany’s Sky Deutschland and DTS of Spain.
Sending SOs to the US companies means an escalation in the EU probe which began in 2011 after a top European court ruled that English Premier League’s geographic restrictions on viewers’ access to soccer matches was in violation of the EU’s competition law.
Source
        
Posted: 23 Jul 2015 10:23 AM PDT


Transgender reporter Zoey Tur threatened to hospitalize conservative pundit Ben Shapiro during a Dr Drew debate in which Shapiro dared to utter the hate crime of arguing that wearing a dress didn’t make Tur a biological female.
Tur grabbed Shapiro around the neck before telling him, “If you don’t cut that out, you’ll be going home in an ambulance.”
After the taping, Tur continued the threatening tirade, telling Shapiro, “I’ll see you in the parking lot.”
Tur then doubled down further, indirectly threatening to “curb stomp” Shapiro. He also retweeted someone who advocated punching Shapiro in the face.
In a subsequent radio interview, Tur admitted he was threatening Shapiro during the debate, before going on an anti-Semitic rant in which he claimed that Judaism was “misogynistic cult” which doesn’t allow women to touch men.
In a Twitter exchange with me, Tur then claimed that he was the one under attack.
Whether Zoey Tur has a penis or not, he behaved like a total dick.
Tur’s conduct was that of a repugnant authoritarian bully, and no amount of self-ascribed victimhood status is going to change that fact.
Why does the left get away with demonizing their political adversaries as hateful, intolerant and violent – when it’s leftists themselves who are the most threatening, intolerant and censorious people in the field of public discourse?
Aside of course from radical jihadists, the most violent and intolerant people on the planet, whom the left makes apologies for as they stone women to death and throw gays off buildings.
I’m not even that much of a public figure but I get death threats from leftists every week. Feminists threatening to behead me. Muslims saying I “will be killed” for daring to draw attention to violent passages in the Koran.
Then we have fat pride activists threatening to bomb Protein World. Feminists threatening to bomb a Gamergate meet-up. Feminists getting a man arrested and exposing him to a 6 month jail term simply for disagreeing with them on Twitter. Pro-abortionists assaulting pro-lifers.
The list goes on and on.
When Chuck Johnson said he was planning to politically take out (ie write a hit piece on) Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson, he was instantly banned from Twitter and widely reviled by the leftist media.
So how did the left react to Tur’s direct threat of violence towards Shapiro? They celebrated it and then attacked Shapiro after he filed a police report for assault.
Raw Story lauded Shapiro’s humiliation. Salon blamed Shapiro for provoking Tur and then labeled him a coward.Crooks and Liars called Shapiro a twerp and accused him of inciting Tur.
Isn’t it funny how leftists constantly berate those on the right for victim blaming, yet rush to victim blame when the victim’s not a liberal?
Imagine if this had been the other way around. Imagine if Bill O’Reilly had physically grabbed and violently threatened Caitlyn Jenner. Do you think the left would have dismissed it as no big deal?
And isn’t it interesting that while constantly proclaiming herself to be female, Zoey Tur suddenly discovered her natural innate caveman?
As Steven Crowder writes, “Nothing screams, “I AM WOMAN!” quite like the utterly manly response of physically attacking someone who pissed you off.” How very feminine…..
If there’s one thing that leftists hate most, it’s being called out on their rampant and unbridled hypocrisy.
That’s why, instead of swallowing their pride and accepting that Tur’s behavior was unacceptable, they’ve rallied round him and made out Shapiro to be the villain.
All this illustrates that the left doesn’t believe in equality. They think that by ascribing themselves special victimhood status, that gives them a free pass to engage in hate, violence and intolerance – while lecturing us about how hateful, violent and intolerant we are simply for challenging their views.
Well this time, it blew up in their face.
Source
        
Posted: 23 Jul 2015 10:06 AM PDT

NASA astronomers have found a second mountain range on Pluto. Scientists are puzzled over the distinctive difference with the first mountainous region discovered on the distant planet.
The New Horizons mission said the mountains had been found on the lower-left ledge of Pluto’s heart-shaped Tombaugh Regio area.
The mountains are from 1 to 1.5 kilometers high and are comparable with the Appalachian Mountains in the US, and the Altai range in Russia.
It comes a week after the first range, dubbed The Norgay Montes (Norgay Mountains), was discovered by the mission. The mystery for the scientists is the dramatic differences between the two ranges, despite them being situated just 110 kilometers apart.
“There is a pronounced difference in texture between the younger, frozen plains to the east and the dark, heavily-cratered terrain to the west,” Jeff Moore, leader of the New Horizons Geology, Geophysics and Imaging Team (GGI), said, as quoted in the official press release.
“There’s a complex interaction going on between the bright and the dark materials that we’re still trying to understand,” Moore added.
This could be explained by the fact that bright spots are geologically younger, less than 100 million years, while the darker areas could date back billions of years.
These latest high-res images of Pluto were acquired by the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) on July 14 from a distance of 77,000 kilometers, and sent back to Earth on July 20.

Among other latest findings are new images of Pluto’s second and third moons: Nix (42 kilometers in length) and Hydra (55 kilometers).
Nix is grey and jellybean shaped. However, it has a bright red zone that some scientists think is a crater.
“Additional compositional data has already been taken of Nix, but is not yet downlinked. It will tell us why this region is redder than its surroundings,” mission scientist Carly Howett told the Telegraph.
“This observation is so tantalizing, I’m finding it hard to be patient for more Nix data to be downlinked,” she also said.

Source
        
Posted: 22 Jul 2015 01:02 PM PDT

A massive alien spacecraft, around the size of the US state of Idaho, has been spotted near the sun by ufologists in recent NASA pictures. They say the object definitely has a structure.
The video released by Youtube user Streetcap1 shows the original NASA image of the sun captured by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) on July 15, 2015.
“This UFO is awesome! Every time I try to ask NASA about these UFOs on Twitter, they ignore me. They have never answered me and refuse to talk about these giant UFOs near our sun,” said a statement from the UFO Sightings Daily, a website devoted to possible UFO detections on or above our planet.
According to the website, whose slogan is “the truth is within our grasp” (echoing the X-Files’ “The Truth is Out There”), the alleged alien craft is about the size of Idaho (216,000 square kilometers).
UFO Sightings Daily cited an eyewitness who said the object, which is definitely not a space rock or a piece of space junk, “has structure and for NASA to dismiss it as nothing is an insult to people’s intelligence.”
“If they post data then they must expect UFO hunters to find anomalies and share them.”
Our planet seems to be a popular tourism destination for aliens, according to UFO Sightings Daily website. It has recorded about 113 alien faces on the earth and about 231 building on the moon. The site says it has the scoop on why UFOs create crop circles and how alien spaceships are sometimes captured on live TV.
NASA’s SOHO project is a collaboration between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA. Launched in 1995, the project is designed to study the internal structure of the sun, its outer atmosphere and the origin of solar wind – the ionized gas that blows throughout the solar system. The project has become the number one comet finder, charting over 2,700 comets sightings since observations began.
Source
        
Posted: 22 Jul 2015 07:11 AM PDT

The United States is reported to be working with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a backup plan to rescue the Greek economy as economists throughout the world queue up to criticize the latest bailout plan as totally unworkable.
The sheer folly of the latest bailout plan for Greece was summed up last week by Finland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Timo Soini who said that, in agreeing to open negotiations for a third rescue plan for Greece, his government faced “the choice between cholera and smallpox.”
His view echoes that of other Eurozone countries whose parliaments have yet to ratify the latest bailout plan.
In addition to Finland — and especially among the poorer Eurozone countries — there is a reluctance to go along with the latest package.
It has been slammed by Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, who said:
He told CNN the Greek Government had signed up to a new plan that is even worse than the one voted out in the previous week’s referendum.
“It didn’t even occur to me that they would be prepared to make a stand without having done any contingency planning… amazingly — they thought they could simply demand better terms without having any backup plan.”
So, certainly this is a shock. But, you know, in some sense, it’s hopeless in any case… it’s not as if the terms that they were being offered before were feasible,” said Krugman.
“I mean, the new terms are even worse, but the terms they were being offered before were still not going to work. So I, you know, I may have overestimated the competence of the Greek government.”
Creditors Making Same Mistake as in 2010
Economists across the world say there is no hope of the latest bailout package surviving.
The IMF has said that Greece’s public debt has become highly unsustainable. The financing needed through 2018 is now estimated at €85 billion and debt is expected to peak at close to 200 percent of GDP in the next two years, provided that there is an early agreement on a program.
Greece’s debt can now only be made sustainable through debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe has been willing to consider so far.
Even the IMF is in danger of breaking its own statutes, in that it is not allowed to lend to a country if it is capable of bearing its debts without outside help in the foreseeable future. Its target is a maximum of 120 percent of public debt — which Greece manifestly exceeds even now.
It is widely rumoured that the IMF document leaked last week, which said the Greek bailout was unsustainable, was a clear sign that the IMF did not believe that Europe cannot handle a major economic emergency.
Even the German newspaper Die Welt considers the latest bailout package to be nonsense. It said on Monday:
“Overall, the conditions are far harder than those it rejected in their referendum. For most Greeks, the cuts go too far.”
“In 2013, the IMF said there were ‘significant errors’ in the [2010] the rescue plan for Greece. They had significantly underestimated how much the austerity measures exacerbated the downturn. Many economists fear that creditors are now repeating exactly the same mistake.”
Source
        
Posted: 22 Jul 2015 06:55 AM PDT

Pravda.Ru conducted an interview with Daniel Filmus, Argentina’s Secretary for Malvinas Islands Affairs to discuss the ongoing dispute regarding the Falkland Islands, aka the Malvinas, between Argentina and the UK. Argentina’s relations with leading countries of the West worsened considerably in late June of 2015, after the Federal Court in Rio Grande ordered provisional measures to companies that operate illegally in Argentine soil.
– Argentine federal judge Lilian Herráez ordered to seize assets of five oil producing companies that conduct drilling offshore the Malvinas. Why was the decision made just now? Which is the ground in terms of
international law?
Argentina is entitled to pursue legal actions against exploration and exploitation activities of hydrocarbons in its soil and in the continental platform in full respect with our Domestic Law and with International Law.
Likewise, let me recall that also according to International Law, the Malvinas Islands are part of our territory and the UK usurpation in 1833 has broken our territorial integrity. Argentina has consistently denounced the United Kingdom’s usurpation and, as it is provided for in the Argentine Constitution, has ratified its sovereignty over the islands and affirmed that its recovery in accordance with international law constitutes a permanent and unrelinquished goal.
Therefore, as Malvinas is part of our territory as such, we are exercising our full sovereignty rights. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is also quite clear when it provides the limits of the continental shelf. Argentina has exclusive rights and sovereignty and no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of our country. An authorization by the Argentine authorities is needed to drill on the Argentine continental shelf.
Since, no authorization was ever requested to any Argentine national authorities, those activities illegal and subject to administrative and criminal sanctions. As I said before, these sanctions are in accordance with our Domestic Laws, and provide that any activity held anywhere on our continental platform without Argentina’s authorization are illegal. This was expressly endorsed by the international community, including the Group of 77 and China, Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), Latin American Energy Organization (OLADE) and Latin American Integration Association (ALADI).
The UN has adopted a position on this matter several years ago. The UN General Assembly Resolution 2065 – adopted in 1965- acknowledges a sovereignty dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands. In 1976, the UNGA adopted Resolution 31/49 by which both the UK and Argentina were called “to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended by the UN General Assembly.” Sadly, this was not respected by the UK.
The Judge of Tierra del Fuego- who has jurisdiction on Malvinas and the South Atlantic Islands- applied the law. She made her decision after confirming that exploration and exploitation activities were being carried out without any authorization, whatsoever, therefore in violation of the applicable law.
The Judge was notified in 2012 about the existence of illegal acts. After she confirmed the facts and that our Rule of Law was being violated, the involved companies were notified, warned and finally, sanctioned in 2013.
In April 2015, a criminal complaint was filed and later that month, the Federal Court in Rio Grande decided to open a criminal case and ordered judicial measures, among them the collection of evidence. Finally, the Court ordered “provisional measures” against companies that operate illegally in Argentina, including seizures of assets.
– In total there were seized assets worth 156 million dollars. The
measure affected an American, French and three British oil companies.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office kept silence, as well as the US
Department of State, and French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Why?
Argentina’s position is based on International Law.
Our position has been supported by the Latin American Energy Organization (OLADE), Mercosur and the G77 + China, among other organizations and forums. Argentina will resort to all legal instruments to prevent the illegal exploration and exploitation of the resources that belong to 40 million of Argentines. Those who violate International treaties and Argentine domestic Law will be taken to Courts.
Just recently, on July 15th, 2015 our President Cristina Fernandez and the President of Bolivia adopted a Joint Declaration, by which, Bolivia-a country with one of the biggest and more important gas reserves in the world-reiterated the strong support to the legitimate sovereignty rights of Argentina over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas.
President Morales also supported the legal actions implemented by our country in full respect with the Law. Morales ratified “the solidarity of Bolivia with Argentina” and stated his commitment to cooperate, “in accordance with international law, with the existing international agreements and their respective domestic laws, on the implementation of legal actions against unauthorized activities of exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons on the continental shelf”. Bolivia also promised to consider the list of companies involved in such activities when authorizing activities of exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in its own jurisdiction. It is, indeed, groundbreaking.
We again urge the United Kingdom to resume dialogue as the only way to resolve the dispute, as demanded by the United Nations for half a century.
– According to the Policy Unit, GDP per capita in the Malvinas was
rising 11% a year, and thus, the kelpers are ones of the world’s top
ten. What is this rise owing to?
The illegal government of the Malvinas has sold licenses- approximately 206 licenses- to operate around the Malvinas and allows them steal the catch of illex argentinus and other valuable fish stocks.
This explains why those numbers.
Once again, this is done unilaterally and without the authorization of Argentina. This is serious and it damages not only our economy but the Rule of Law.
This is a violation of our National Laws and of international Law too.
– Which is the prospect of the world community acknowledging Argentine
title to the islands?
The United Nations has characterized the Question of the Malvinas Islands as a special and particular colonial case as it involves a sovereignty dispute between the Argentina and the UK which should be settled through negotiations between the two parties.
This mandate was first established 50 years ago, and renewed ever since, not only by the United Nations, but by other international, multilateral and bi-regional for a to this very date. Latin America, the Caribbean, Arab States and Africa support our approach.
We count with the support from every corner of the world and that is why this year, in Argentina – as well as in other countries in Latin America- we are commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Adoption of UNGA Resolution 2065 and renewing the call to the UK to abide by International Law, that is, to sit down and resume bilateral negotiations.
When adopting that Resolution fifty years ago both countries engaged in negotiations for almost two decades. This is the dialogue that the international community is calling for.
– Do you see any prospect of developing a hot conflict?
Argentina is committed to settling the sovereignty dispute by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of International Law, and bearing in mind the interests of the inhabitants. So much so, that our commitment is enshrined in our National Constitution, adopted in 1994.
On the contrary, the UK keeps on announcing increases in the military budget in the Malvinas islands, despite Latin America and Africa’s rejection of militarization in the South Atlantic.
– What can Russia do in order to support this stance from your point of 
view?
Russia has always supported Argentina on the Question of Malvinas Islands. Russia has voted in support of Argentina at the UN General Assembly, ever since the adoption of Resolution 2065/50 fifty years ago and is member of the Decolonization Committee, where it takes a firm stand in favor of the dialogue and negotiation.
More recently, both President Fernandez de Kirchner and Putin issued a joint Statement, in which they reiterate the need to resume immediately direct negotiations with the UK over this matter. The same statement highlights the inadmissibility of the militarization of the South Atlantic and underlines the need to comply with the obligations arising from the Treaties of Tlatelolco and additional protocols.
Source
        
Posted: 22 Jul 2015 06:37 AM PDT
Adm. Scott Swift speaks to journalists on Friday, July 17, 2015 in Manila, Philippines.
An American political commentator says the United States is trying to escalate tensions in the South China Sea, which can lead to tragic consequences.
Professor Dennis A. Etler made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Sunday while commenting on Washington’s decision to start surveillance flights over the South China Sea.
According to the Associated Press, the United States is spying over the South China Sea using one of its newest surveillance aircraft.
Admiral Scott Swift, the new US commander of the Pacific Fleet, joined a seven-hour spying mission on board a P-8A Poseidon plane on Saturday, the report said.
“I think it is a very dangerous precedent that [Americans] are establishing by militarising the South China Sea, in that the US is trying to project its power, and assert its prerogatives there in the face of the Chinese assertion of sovereignty over the area,” he said, before warning that “This can lead to dire consequences as we’ve seen in the past when powers are in contention.”
Washington accuses Beijing of undergoing a massive “land reclamation” program in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea, and says China’s territorial claims of the man-made islands could further militarize the region.
The United States says its surveillance of China’s artificial islands indicates that Beijing has positioned weaponry on one of the islands it has built in the South China Sea.
Professor Etler said the US action “brings up memories of the Korean Airlines [Flight] KAL007 that was shot down over the Sea of Japan – over Sakhalin Island back in 1983 – with the loss of nearly 300 people, that was shot down by the Soviet Union, of course.”
“The US had been flying nearby for years with surveillance flights, very similar to what’s going on in the South China Sea and the Soviets were reacting to that, and unfortunately with tragic consequences,” he pointed out.
Citing various incidents, Professor Etler stated that “all of these incidents are the result of tensions mounted by the US… leading to situations where tragedies of this sort can occur, whether or by accident or by pre-meditation… so that the US has an excuse to intervene,” concluding that “I think, what the US is doing, is just trying to escalate tensions. They hope it might lead to some sort of incidence, which they then can exploit for their benefit.”
A P-8A Poseidon aircraft.
A Chinese state-owned newspaper warned in May that a war between the United States and China is “inevitable,” unless Washington stops demanding Beijing halt its construction projects in the South China Sea.
“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea,” the Global Times, an influential newspaper owned by the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper the People’s Daily, said in an editorial.
Washington does not recognize China’s sovereignty in the disputed areas and has sent surveillance aircraft and warships to test its territorial claims.
The Obama administration is trying to keep its focus on a widely advertised shift to Asia, which it has pursued since 2011. The White House argues that no region is more important to the United States’ long-term interests than Asia.
Source
        
Posted: 22 Jul 2015 06:28 AM PDT

US anti-missile systems will be placed in Poland despite world powers reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, John A. Heffern, US Deputy Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, said.
“The deal with Tehran doesn’t include missiles, therefore the threat remains,” Heffern told Polish Rzeczpospolita newspaper Tuesday, adding that he was speaking about Iranian rockets without nuclear warheads.
According to the US diplomat, the construction of AMD components in the village of Redzikowo near the northern Polish town of Slupsk starts next year – as scheduled – and will be completed in 2018.
Washington’s plans to install anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe have been one of the biggest stumbling blocks in US-Russia relations.
Moscow refused to believe American explanations that the shield is needed to counter a possible attack from nuclear-capable Iran, considering it a threat to Russia’s national security.
After Tehran agreed to curb its controversial nuclear program in exchange of easing of international sanction, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that Washington’s AMD plans had no justification anymore.
“We all probably remember that in April 2009 in Prague [US] President [Barack] Obama said that if the Iran nuclear program issue is sorted out, then the task of creating the European segment of the missile defense system would disappear,” Lavrov stated at a press conference in Vienna.
In his interview with Rzeczpospolita, Heffern also said that NATO isn’t going set up permanent bases in Poland.
“At the NATO summit in Warsaw in July next year, the adoption of resolutions to place permanent NATO bases in Poland will not take place,” the Deputy Secretary of State said.
The Polish government has repeatedly asked to deploy NATO military bases in the country due to the Russian threat.
“We will be [in Poland] for as long as is necessary,” Heffern said, promising that the US forces will maintain a “permanent rotating presence” in Poland.
Since Russia’s reunion with Crimea and the start of the military conflict in eastern Ukraine last spring, NATO forces have sharply increased military exercises along the Russian border – in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, organizing frequent drills in the region.
Russia responded with an increased number of flights of its Russian long-range ‘Bear’ or Tu-95 bombers in the vicinity of the airspace of NATO members and large-scale exercises on its own territory.
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 08:41