Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Tuesday 10 November 2015

The European Union Times


Posted: 09 Nov 2015 03:19 AM PST

In an interview with Sputnik the politician stated that the majority of Montenegrins cherish no NATO membership dreams and therefore plunging the country into the bloc goes against the nation’s will. The current neutral status is the best option, he said adding that it should be supported both Brussels and Moscow.
This concept is derived from two ideas, Knezevic explained.
The social-political aspect reflects Montenegro’s unwillingness to be a pawn in geopolitical games of big powers.
The historical point is that Montenegro and Serbia have painful memories of the NATO 1999 bombardments, and during that operation under a mocking name “Merciful Angel” the alliance dropped 15,000 tons of “dirty bombs” with depleted uranium on Yugoslavia, causing a dramatic surge in cancer, including in children.
“It was NATO’s first military intervention since its formation in 1949 and we clearly understand that its aim was to destroy the socialist republic of Yugoslavia and snatch Kosovo from Serbia.”
Knezevic promised that in the event of Montenegro receiving an invitation to join the military bloc, his party would gather a broad coalition of political organizations, intellectuals, and NGOs. He advocates a referendum as the only fair way of expressing Montenegrins’ will on the issue.
He emphasized that such a balanced strategy would not create a stumbling block in Montenegro’s path to the EU on the one hand, and it would preserve centuries-long nourished brotherly relations with Russia on the other hand.
However, the authorities decided to realize their aim of joining NATO through the parliament and avoiding a referendum, and 21 votes in the 81-seat unicameral Skupstina are enough to enact a corresponding law in accordance with the constitution, Knezevic explained.
“They are trying to elicit a result that contradicts the very nature and the very spirit of the Montenegrin people.”
As the DNP leader, Knezevic told the parliament that should it endorse accession to NATO, in the future other deputies would use the same trick to vote for secession.
Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic’s Political Games
However, although it may sound surprising, irreplaceable leader Milo Djukanovic’s ultimate aim is not to pit Montenegro against Russia pushing it into NATO – the goal he pursues is to remain in power tacking between the changing circumstances, Knezevic elaborated.
Russia quickly recognized Montenegro’s independence after the 2006 referendum and became its main investor pouring huge sums of money into it until 2008. And Djukanovic appreciated this help calling the 2006-2008 period of Russian investments and recognition as the era of Montenegro’s greatest development.
However, later he changed track: in 2008 Montenegro unexpectedly recognized Kosovo, worsened relations with Serbia, and Djukanovic forgot Russia’s helping hand and started to play the NATO card.
Why? In Knezevic’s opinion, the longstanding leader presents such “leaps” as “civilizational achievements”, but if truth be said, he only sticks to his top position balancing between the West and the East.
The Montenegrin opposition is in its turn is adamant in its attitude to “brother ally Russia” and has not forgotten Moscow’s assistance that gave an impetus to the young country’s development, the DNP chairman underscored.
“But Djukanovic abused Russia’s friendship and kind approach.”
Milan Knezevic opined on the roots of the massive social protest that began on September 27.
“In 2006 [after the referendum on separation from the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro] a private state emerged, drowning in criminal and corruption. Five percent of those close to Djukanovic enjoyed the benefits of the regime but 95 percent were on the edge of social existence.”
The protests targeted the “unbearable economic conditions of the majority of Montenegrins.” The DNP accused Djukanovic of crippling the country’s economy including the Podgorica Aluminum Plant that accounted for 15 percent of the GDP. Some enterprises went bankrupt; some were privatized by “friends.” Instead, shopping malls are being built. Montenegro has even lent its famous tourist resorts for a 100 years.
Mass media was also taken under control, spreading Russophobia and NATO propaganda. Those who oppose NATO membership are declared enemies of the state, Knezevic said.
This group has been suppressing Montenegro for years, he said, adding with sarcastic laughter that Djukanovic has been in power for 27 years, nearly catching up with the length of Joseph Stalin’s reign.
In 2016 Montenegro will hold elections, but protesters do not want to wait, accusing Djukanovic of vote rigging:
“He will organize those elections and their outcome will be predestined. That’s why we want an interim government”.
Mind Manipulation
Djukanovic is stirring up Russophobia, resorting to conspiracy theories and finding external enemies as well as internal. He accused Russia and Seribia of fueling the protests in Mintenegro.
“But show me any evidence of their trace in those protests, and I will leave politics.”
The prime minister’s party even falsified history to match the present attempts to alienate Montenegro and Russia by inventing drawbacks in their common history.
During NATO debates, one of the deputies called Soviet soldiers-liberators “villains who committed crimes in Berlin and Yugoslavia,” and no one of his party-members contradicted him.
Another example is bending the truth of a more distant past. The Mass media is now spinning the idea that relations between Russians and Montenegrins were not that ideal and Russia used Montenegro for its own interest. A group of historians is seeking to include such myths into education courses.
A flagrant instance is the manipulation with historic figures. Petar I of Montenegro, a saint who is regarded as the founder of Montenegrin statehood, fought against Napoleon on the side of Russia and made a testament warning to anathematize every Montenegrin who would step away from “Mother and Defender Russia”. Now the same group of historians is trying to change his words.
“If NATO existed in those times, these historians would be trying to prove that Petar I meant NATO, not Russia”.
Milan Knezevic said with a sigh that he could not even think of Montenegro becoming a legitimate target of Russia if it joins NATO and has to confront Moscow as a member. The very idea of a conflict between the two countries is ridiculous.
“I am sure there is not a single Montenegrin who – God forbid! – in case of an armed conflict would fight against Russian brothers”.
Citing the strong support between the two countries, he recalled that in 1905, when Russia engaged in a war with Japan, Montenegro also declared war on Japan, and Montenegrin officers fought in the Far East.
“Unfortunately, the war ended to quickly for Montenegrins to show their military mastery”.
Source
        
Posted: 09 Nov 2015 02:59 AM PST

Britain has listed Russia as one of its top-tier potential security threats alongside global terrorism and the Ebola virus.
UK’s security services published a draft of a new list of what they deem as possible threats to the country, the Express reported on Sunday.
Russia’s alleged aggression in Ukraine, the country’s vast military budget and President Vladimir Putin’s “willingness to display force” are all causes of concern.
“The last five years have seen a range of international developments, ranging from the growth of radicalization and fundamentalism to growing concerns around our energy supply, and rising aggression from Russia,” said the report.
The list also refers to China as a “threat” citing concerns over “authoritarianism and persistent human rights abuses on the part of the Chinese Government.”
The potentially devastating effects of global health issues such as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa were also included in the list.
The report will be officially released by British Prime Minister David Cameron on November 23 and after a security review will become part of the government’s next national security strategy.
On Saturday, the US accused Moscow of being engaged in “challenging activities” at sea, in the air, in space and cyberspace.
“Most disturbing, Moscow’s nuclear saber-rattling raises questions about Russian leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and whether they respect the profound caution nuclear-age leaders showed with regard to the brandishing of nuclear weapons,” said US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
He added that the US military is planning to counter Russia’s “aggression” by adapting its “operational posture and contingency.”
Carter also expressed “deep” concerns about China’s growing influence and military power, saying its land reclamation bid in the South China Sea could trigger war in the Asia-Pacific region.
Relations between the United States and Russia are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War in 1991, largely due to the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s air campaign against foreign-backed militants in Syria.
The US and its western allies accuse Moscow of sending troops into eastern Ukraine in support of the pro-Russian forces. Moscow has long denied involvement in Ukraine’s crisis.
Source
        
Posted: 09 Nov 2015 02:46 AM PST

Hallowe’en, the Day of the Witches, All Hallows’ Evening, Samhain. Day of the Dead. Pumpkins, chestnuts, new wine, mulled wine. A bonfire, to keep away the evil spirits, the Aos Sí and to bring the community together, the first festival of light in the dark winter with little or no agricultural produce. What is the meaning of all these symbols?
The end, or death, of the agricultural year in Europe happens around this time and as the centuries wore on, the Celtic peoples (and probably others) stipulated that at sunset on October 31 begins Samhain (pronounced So’win). This was a “boundary time” when the Aos Sí (bad spirits) could move easily from the underworld into our world and so bonfires were lit to cleanse the Earth from evil and to protect communities against it.
From the earliest times, children would go “mumming” or “guising”, wearing disguises as monsters, witches or bad spirits, going from door to door asking for offerings of food and drink – or else people placed these outside their homes for the Aos Sí to take and be appeased.
A time of darkness and uncertainty
It was a time of darkness and uncertainty, a time when survival depended on how much food had been stored from the harvest and in what conditions it was in, a time when the wine or beer barrel was opened and which hopefully would last until Spring. It was a time when the fattened pig would be slaughtered and salted, when sausages would be made, hams smoked.
It was a time before the potato, which was brought to Europe from the region of the Andes in the sixteenth century. What substituted the potato at the time was the chestnut, especially in Southern Europe, where a chestnut festivity took place at the beginning of November around a Magnus Ustus, a Great Bonfire. As with Samhain, the date became institutionalized and was fixed on November 11, the Day of Saint Martin.
Medieval festivals carried across the waters
In Medieval times, these festivities were still very popular in Europe and were carried over to the Americas by the Portuguese (Brazil), Spanish (rest of Latin America), French and British (North America), where they continued, while they became less popular in Europe and were celebrated locally by communities. In some cases, they took on a different meaning, as was the case with Guy Fawkes’ Night, or Bonfire Night, in the United Kingdom.
Guy Fawkes, an English Catholic, was part of a plot to blow up barrels of gunpowder under the House of Parliament when it was to be opened by King James VI of Scotland, James I of England (who became King of both countries upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603), on November 5, 1605. The plot was discovered, Guy Fawkes committed suicide just before he was hanged (he jumped from the gallows and broke his neck) and since then the day has been remembered throughout the UK with fireworks, bonfires, chestnuts and a stuffed doll representing the “Guy”, children wheeling the doll around the villages asking for “A penny for the Guy”.
But this does not begin in 1605 – as we see, the symbology is the same as that coming from ancient times and the burning of the guy resembles the burning of the scarecrow in Iberian communities around this time.
Lost traditions, but traditions with meaning, traditions and festivities which bring people together, instead of dividing them, festivities of sharing, and not stealing, festivities for the common good, to see who is needy, and festivities which provide a self-regulatory mechanism for communities based upon human warmth.
Perhaps we can learn something from history. Maybe we should research our traditions and festivals instead of relegating them to history’s trash can.
Source
        
Posted: 09 Nov 2015 01:53 AM PST

China and Taiwan’s heads of state have shaken hands in a first meeting to be held at such a level since the island broke away from China in 1949.
The meeting was held in Singapore on Saturday between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Taiwanese counterpart Ma Ying-jeou.
The event is more of a symbolic nature, with both sides having said it is not to produce any agreements or statements.
‘Misters’ for peace
China and Taiwan are physically separated by the Taiwan Strait in the west Pacific Ocean. They split politically following the 1927-1950 Chinese Civil War and there have been no formal cross-strait diplomatic relations ever since.
Although the neighbors’ relations have taken a turn for the better ever since Ma came to power in 2008, China continues to regard Taiwan as part of its territory, but the self-ruled island still considers Beijing to be a threat.
Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council has said that, during their meeting, Ma and Xi will address one another as “mister” rather than by their official titles, which neither side recognizes.
Ma said on Thursday that he hoped the meeting will usher in the start of regular top-level dialog, but said that there were currently “no conditions” for reunification. “Here I assure you all that I’ll do my best to achieve the original goals we set – to improve cross-strait peace and to make the two sides more cooperative,” he said at Taipei Songshan Airport before flying to Singapore.
The Taiwanese president’s decision to attend the meeting with Xi has sparked debate and protests on the island, where the opposition Democratic Progressive Party has criticized his having taken the decision so close to the end of his tenure. The island is to elect a new chief executive on January 16.
China’s goals for the region
Xi’s visit to Singapore followed a two-day visit by the Chinese president to Vietnam, where he also met with other regional officials.
Speaking to Press TV’s Website, international human rights lawyer Arno Develay interpreted China’s recent flurry of meetings with regional leaders as a sign it “is not about to remain on the defensive in the wake of the recent signing of the Trans-Pacific Trade Treaty between the US and fourteen Asian countries.”
The signatories to the agreement, which came after some eight years of negotiations, include Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand.
Develay said, “To be sure, China is well aware of the so-called ‘pivot’ strategy initiated at the beginning of [US] President [Barack] Obama’s term in office… It knows that the aim of this realignment in US foreign policy in the Far East is to ‘contain’ the rise of China in order to prevent it from becoming a rival not only in the region, but also eventually on the world stage.”
“China’s strategy is thus twofold. First, it will attempt to limit US influence in the region by establishing and/or reinforcing bilateral trade with traditional regional partners,” Develay said. “It will then be China’s policy to engage in a reinforcement of its military presence in the South China Sea.”
Source
        
Posted: 09 Nov 2015 01:43 AM PST

Late in September, we brought you “US Readies Battle Plans For Baltic War With Russia” in which we described a series of thought experiments undertaken by The Pentagon in an effort to determine what the likely outcome would be should something go horribly “wrong” on the way to landing the US in a shooting war with Russia in the Balkans.
The results of those thought experiments were not encouraging. As a reminder, here’s how Foreign Policy summed up the exercises:
In June 2014, a month after he had left his force-planning job at the Pentagon, the Air Force asked David Ochmanek – deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development – for advice on Russia’s neighborhood ahead of Obama’s September visit to Tallinn, Estonia. At the same time, the Army had approached another of Ochmanek’s colleagues at Rand, and the two teamed up to run a thought exercise called a “table top,” a sort of war game between two teams: the red team (Russia) and the blue team (NATO). The scenario was similar to the one that played out in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: increasing Russian political pressure on Estonia and Latvia (two NATO countries that share borders with Russia and have sizable Russian-speaking minorities), followed by the appearance of provocateurs, demonstrations, and the seizure of government buildings. “Our question was: Would NATO be able to defend those countries?” Ochmanek recalls.
The results were dispiriting. Given the recent reductions in the defense budgets of NATO member countries and American pullback from the region, Ochmanek says the blue team was outnumbered 2-to-1 in terms of manpower, even if all the U.S. and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics — including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice and is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
To be sure, the fact that this is even under consideration is somewhat surreal. Sure, no one took Hillary Clinton serioulsy when she presented Sergei Lavrov with the now infamous “reset” button (which actually didn’t say “reset” because thanks to a “typo” the prop said “peregruzka” which means “overcharged”), but with a Nobel Peace Price-winning President in The White House, no one expected things to deterirotate to the point that NATO was seriously contemplating a war with the Russians.
Nevertheless, Moscow’s intervention in Syria has the West concerned that for the first time in nearly thirty years, The Kremlin doesn’t fear a direct confrontation.
The problem for The Pentagon isn’t so much that the US has fallen behind in terms of spending money on expensive war toys (i.e. we don’t necessarily doubt that Washington has the best technology).Rather, the US seems to have fallen behind in terms of its ability to fight a conventional war against a formidable foe, presumably because there really haven’t been any formidable foes in decades.
Well now, it seems entirely possible that the US may have to fight a conventional war against the Russians (and possibly the Iraninans) and that means you can no longer depend on the fact that on a warrior-for-warrior basis, a handful of SEAL Team Six members can pull off battlefield miracles, because no matter how elite your spec ops are, you can’t pit twelve guys against four thousand and expect them to win.
It’s with all of this in mind that Washington is beginning to assess whether the US could hold its ground against Russia in a conventional standoff. According to retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, American forces would get “annihilated.” Here’s more, via Politico:
For those villagers eagerly snapping pictures on the side of a road in the Czech Republic in late September, the appearance of the line of U.S. “Stryker” armored fighting vehicles must have seemed more like a parade than a large-scale military operation. The movement of some 500-plus soldiers of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Vilsack in Bavaria to a Hungarian military base was intended to strengthen U.S. ties with the Czech, Slovak and Hungarian militaries and put Russia’s Vladimir Putin on notice.
But not everyone is convinced. “This Stryker parade won’t fool anyone in Moscow,” says retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor. “The Russians don’t do many things well, but they have been subverting, destabilizing, invading and conquering their neighbors since Peter the Great. And what’s our response: a small unit of light armored trucks.”
Viewed by many of his colleagues as one of the most innovative Army officers of his generation, Macgregor, a West Point graduate with a Ph.D. in international relations (“he can be pretty gruff,” a fellow West Point graduate says, “but he’s brilliant”), led the 2nd Cav’s “Cougar Squadron” in the best-known battle of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991. In 23 minutes, Macgregor’s force destroyed an entire Iraqi Armored Brigade (including nearly 70 Iraqi armored vehicles), while suffering a single American casualty. Speaking at a military “lessons learned” conference one year later, Air Force General Jack Welsh described the Battle of 73 Easting (named for a map coordinate) as “a stunning, overwhelming victory.”
In the wake of the battle, however, Macgregor calculated that if his unit had fought a highly trained and better armed enemy, like the Russians, the outcome would have been different.
In early September he circulated a PowerPoint presentation showing that in a head-to-head confrontation pitting the equivalent of a U.S. armored division against a likely Russian adversary, the U.S. division would be defeated.
“Defeated isn’t the right word,” Macgregor told me last week. “The right word is annihilated.” The 21-slide presentation features four battle scenarios, all of them against a Russian adversary in the Baltics — what one currently serving war planner on the Joint Chiefs staff calls “the most likely warfighting scenario we will face outside of the Middle East.”
“Macgregor scares the hell out of the Army,” says a senior Joint Chiefs war planner. “What he has proposed is nothing less than the dismantling of the Big Green Machine, getting the Army to embrace a future of lighter, more agile forces than the big lumbering behemoth which takes forever to spool up and deploy. I’ll bet the armor and airborne guys are furious. Reform my ass: Macgregor has walked into the zoo and slapped the gorilla.”
Yeah well, the US has already “walked into the zoo” and slapped the Russian grizzly bear. It sounds to us like Macregror may have a battle plan that actually isn’t a joke, which means it will be promptly dismissed by The Pentagon.
After all, it’s all about covert ops these days. And that’s working so well for Washington in the Mid-East. Why fix something that isn’t broken right?…
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 09:43