The proposals, which were submitted to NATO and U.S. officials earlier this week, call for sweeping concessions and guarantees from what Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov previously referred to as the “collective West.”

The document outlines two distinct legal agreements; one between the United States and Russia, the other between NATO and Russia. The agreement with Washington requires the United States to exclude the eastward expansion of NATO and to refuse the future admittance of any states belonging to the former Soviet Union. The relevant portion of the agreement with NATO covers similar themes but is worded slightly differently: “Participants that are member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) undertake responsibilities to exclude the further expansion of NATO, including Ukraine as well as other states.”

Both the NATO and U.S. versions of the agreement prohibit the deployment of any foreign weapons and establishment of any foreign military bases, whether Western or Russian, in Ukraine and the former Soviet sphere. The document likewise prohibits the deployment of additional NATO forces outside the territories in which they were prior to NATO’s eastward enlargement in May 1997, except in exceptional circumstances and unless agreed to by both sides. “Our position is that we need to remove all this and return to the positions of 1997,” Ryabkov added. “Enough is enough.” The NATO agreement calls on all signatories to affirm that they do not regard one another as “opponents,” a term previously used by Ryabkov and other top Russian officials to describe the United States.

The Russian side has made clear that the Kremlin rejects any sort of piecemeal approach to the ongoing negotiations. “This is not a menu,” said Ryabkov:

Both texts are not formulated as a menu, where it is possible to pick and choose, they reinforce one another and must be evaluated in their totality. Various aspects of the alarming situation in Europe, the Euro-atlantic, and Eurasia are covered in of themselves. We regard as important this integrated, comprehensive approach to problems in the sphere of security and the integrated, comprehensive nature of the security guarantees to the Russian Federation must be preserved.

NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance has received the draft proposal, adding that any dialogue with Moscow “would also need to address NATO’s concerns about Russia’s actions, be based on core principles and documents of European security, and take place in consultation with NATO’s European partners, such as Ukraine.” Stoltenberg has already rejected Russia’s demand to formally rescind a 2008 NATO declaration that Ukraine will eventually become a member of the alliance; both NATO and the EU have previously signaled that they will not accept any legal prohibition on Ukraine’s right to seek NATO membership.

A senior White House official told the Washington Post that the Kremlin’s published demands are “unacceptable” and Moscow “knows that,” reportedly adding that it is “unhelpful” to conduct the negotiations in public.

Michael Kofman, director of the Russia Studies Program at the Center for Naval Analysis and a fellow at the Kennan Institute in Washington, DC, offered a bleak assessment of the ongoing talks on Twitter: “Moscow has not only been asking for things it cannot get, but in a way they know will ensure they cannot attain them. Serious negotiations are done behind closed doors. Something is very wrong with this picture, the pol[itical] side appears to be a smokescreen.” Kofman’s statement echoes the concern that the proposal, and the take-it-or-leave-it style in which it was delivered, is a kind of July Ultimatum that the Kremlin fully expects to be rejected by the West—that rejection could then be used as a pretext for further military escalation or future military action.

The draft was published on the heels of a large buildup of Russian forces on Russia’s side of Ukraine’s eastern border. Military experts and top Biden administration officials have previously assessed that Moscow could be slowly laying the foundation for a decisive military operation against Ukraine. “We don’t know whether President [Vladimir] Putin has made the decision to invade Ukraine,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken said earlier this month. “We do know that he’s putting in place the capacity to do so on short order, should he so decide. So despite uncertainty about intention, and timing, we must prepare for all contingencies while working to see to it that Russia reverses course.”

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the Biden administration will study the Russian draft proposal with “our European allies and partners.” Psaki added that the United States will not compromise “the key principles on which European security is built, including that all countries have the right to decide their own future and foreign policy free from outside interference.”

The Biden administration is expected to comment on the Russian proposals next week.

Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest.

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/will-putin%E2%80%99s-ultimatum-lead-war-198220

The post Will Putin’s Ultimatum Lead to War? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The removal order would reduce the U.S. troop presence in Germany by 9,500 from the 34,500 service members who are permanently assigned there. It would also cap at 25,000 the number of American troops in Germany at any one time. Under current practice, overall troop levels can rise to as high as 52,000 as units rotate in and out or take part in training exercises.

GERMANY’S MERKEL ACCUSES RUSSIA OF HACKING HER EMAIL ACCOUNT

The Trump administration ordered the change in a memorandum signed recently by White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien, the officials said Friday.

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, is welcomed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the first day of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, northern Germany, Friday, July 7, 2017. (Associated Press)

---

The decision drew criticism from some former senior defense officials and lawmakers concerned that it would further weaken a key alliance and empower U.S. adversaries. Moscow is likely to welcome the open display of differences between two key North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, U.S. experts said, though Russia didn’t comment publicly on the development.

One senior U.S. official said that the administration has been discussing the move since September and that it isn’t linked to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision not to attend a G-7 meeting Mr. Trump was to host in Washington at the end of June.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But the official acknowledged that it reflected the Trump administration’s long frustration with German policy, especially the nation’s level of military spending and its insistence on completing the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will channel Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-directs-pentagon-to-pull-9500-us-troops-from-germany-by-september

The post Trump directs Pentagon to pull 9,500 US troops from Germany by September first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

(Bloomberg Opinion) — Now that German leaders have responded to French President Emmanuel Macron’s provocative remarks concerning the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an unusually wide public rift has emerged between France and Germany. At its root, it’s about France’s leadership ambitions, to which Germany is opposed without itself wanting to lead.

“We do want a strong and sovereign Europe,” Foreign Minister Heiko Maas wrote in an op-ed article in the weekly Der Spiegel on Sunday. “But we need it as part of a strong NATO, and not as a substitute.”

That doesn’t just mean Maas is keen to preserve Europe’s, and Germany’s, transatlantic alliance regardless of U.S. President Donald Trump’s relative lack of interest in it — simply because Europe cannot defend itself without U.S. help today. Maas insisted that “when Europe is one day able to defend its own security, we should still want NATO.” And, directly answering Macron’s musings about improving relations with Russia as the alliance with the U.S. erodes, the German minister declared that “Germany will not tolerate any special arrangements, not vis-à-vis Moscow and not on any other matters,” because it takes the security of Poland and the Baltic states to heart.

These are strong statements, especially coming from Maas. He’s a member of the Social Democratic Party, which is less pro-U.S. and pro-NATO than its senior partner in Germany’s governing coalition, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union. But on the points Maas made in his article, the German government appears to be united. Merkel, too, has criticized Macron’s vision more sharply than on any other matter since his election in 2017, calling it a “sweeping attack.”

“We must bring the European part of NATO closer together,” Merkel said on her regular Sunday podcast. That, she added, was what the European Union defense project, known as Permanent Structured Cooperation, or Pesco, is all about.

That’s an approach radically different from Macron’s. To him, the EU defense project is about strategic sovereignty. To German politicians, it’s largely an efficiency project aimed at harmonizing European countries’ defense industries, cutting the number of different defense systems used by member states’ armies, and centralizing the development of new weapons such as warplanes and tanks.

This German visio is consistent with the Framework Nations Concept, adopted by NATO in 2014. It’s a mechanism for voluntary defense cooperation built around specific nations’ projects, such as Germany’s own idea of coordinating the development of defense capabilities, or the U.K.’s work on a multinational rapid response force. Under the concept, pretty much any cooperation projects, even those including non-NATO members such as Sweden and Finland, can take place under NATO’s umbrella.

With NATO providing such a flexible platform, it’s often not obvious why any other defense cooperation programs are necessary. NATO and the EU have agreed to coordinate their activities, anyway, and it’s evident from progress reports on that effort that this creates a lot of duplicative bureaucratic activity such as cross-participation in working groups. The same exercises under the program get two different names, one for the EU and one for NATO.

But especially from the French point of view, NATO isn’t the best platform for joint procurement programs, because outside it, Europeans can keep out U.S. competition. Involving NATO also means dealing with the U.S. as the organization’s military leader. France, as the country with the strongest military in the EU, likes to exercise leadership, too. Which is perhaps the best explanation for Macron’s European Intervention Initiative, an attempt at coordinating European countries’ strategic thinking that isn’t even part of EU defense cooperation.

Germany doesn’t have France’s military ambitions. It’s a low defense spender because higher expenditure is politically unpopular. The Bundeswehr’s combat readiness is constantly in question, and there’s all the weight of history on the shoulders of  German leaders. So German politicians see their function in maintaining European security differently than Macron does, even if they, too, refer to “leadership.”

“As a country at the centre of Europe, Germany must play a central, mediatory and balanced role – within Europe and vis-a-vis the United States,” Maas wrote. “If we do not assume this leadership role, nobody will.”

Being a mediator, though, is not the same as being a leader. An unambitious, compromise-minded Germany won’t compete with Macron’s cocky France, but it’ll be a drag on Macron’s security strategizing, getting in the way as he tries to provoke the U.S. with talk of strategic autonomy or flirt with Russia. It’ll provide the reliably boring alternative, and that’s probably for the best: Any machine in which Macron designs the sporty engine needs German-made brakes.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.

Source: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/germany-won-t-enlist-in-macron-s-european-army-1.1346425

The post Germany Won’t Enlist in Macron’s European Army first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The French president said that Washington “is turning its back” on its European allies.

French President Emmanuel Macron questioned Thursday the United States’ commitment with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in an interview with the British magazine The Economist, saying Washington’s lack of will to defend its allies has put Europe “on the edge of a precipice.”

“What we are currently experiencing is NATO’s brain death,” he said warning European countries that they can no longer rely on America to defend its allies. In addition, the French leader noted that the U.S.-led military bloc “only works if the guarantor of last resort functions as such.”

“I would say that we should reevaluate the reality of what NATO is in the light of the United States commitment,” Macron suggested.

The French head of state warned that “[Washington] is turning its back on us,” as he remembered the sudden decision of U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw troops from northeastern Syria last month without consulting with his allies.

This decision took NATO’s main European powers by surprise (France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) and paved the way for Turkey, another member of the Alliance, to launch its cross-border military operation against Kurdish forces in Syria.

When asked if he still believed in the concept of “collective defense,” stipulated in Article 5 of the founding treaty of NATO – which provides that the attack against an ally be considered as an attack against all of them – Macron wasn’t confident of what that could mean in the near future.

Macron defended that the time has come for Europe to start acting as an independent geopolitical power. In his opinion, this must begin with the recovery of “military sovereignty” and with the resumption of dialogue with Russia.

Source: https://www.telesurenglish.net//news/macron-nato-experiences-brain-death-20191107-0016.html

The post NATO Experiencing ‘Brain Death’ French President Macron first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Donald Trump with Recep Tayyip Erdogan on July 11. Photographer: Marlene Awaad/Bloomberg

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned the U.S. that its decades-long alliance with the country is at risk after rising political tensions between the two nations erupted and helped stoke a financial crisis that shook global markets.

Erdogan, in an editorial Friday in the New York Times, cited Turkey’s cooperation with the U.S. dating back to the Cuban missile crisis and the Korean War as evidence of a long-standing partnership between the NATO allies. But he added that more recent disputes over a failed 2016 coup, the conflict in Syria and sanctions imposed this week against top Turkish officials and the country’s steel industry were straining that alliance to its breaking point.

“Before it is too late, Washington must give up the misguided notion that our relationship can be asymmetrical and come to terms with the fact that Turkey has alternatives,” Erdogan wrote. “Failure to reverse this trend of unilateralism and disrespect will require us to start looking for new friends and allies.”

Turkey’s economy was already taking a beating — with the lira plunging as Erdogan urged his citizens in a nationally-televised speech to sell their gold and dollar holdings to help prop up the lira — when President Donald Trump unexpectedly announced on Twitter that he was doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum from Turkey.

Market Rout

“Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!” Trump said in a move that accelerated a market rout in Turkey that spread across emerging markets. The lira plunged as much as 17 percent on Friday alone, bringing its loss for the year to 42 percent. Beyond investor fears about measures the U.S. could take, the sell-off represented a vote of no-confidence in a new system of government that earlier this year handed Erdogan unrivaled authority, essentially paralyzing the bureaucracy in Ankara.

While Trump’s announcement added fuel to the crisis, many investors say the $900 billion economy was already headed toward a cliff, and only needed a push.

The deterioration in ties with the U.S. had been under way for years and began accelerating after the failed 2016 coup. Even before the latest tensions this week, Erdogan had been courting Moscow, inking an agreement to buy a Russian missile defense system.

NATO Concern

That raised alarms in Western capitals and the U.S. Congress that Turkey was becoming a less-reliable partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization despite hosting the U.S. and other allies at its Incirlik air base for the fight against Islamic State. Erdogan has also expanded his outreach to Iran and China.

In his article, Erdogan cited a series of well known grievances he said were poisoning ties. He said the U.S. has dragged its feet on Turkey’s request to extradite Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric and former ally living in Pennsylvania who Erdogan blames for the 2016 coup. The U.S. Justice Department has said it’s reviewing documents Turkey has provided as evidence Gulen should be deported, but no legal action has been taken.

Erdogan also cited U.S. support for Kurdish militias in the Syrian war. Ankara views those groups as linked to Turkish Kurds it says are terrorists. The U.S. says they aren’t linked.

Sanction Anger

The Turkish leader was angered by Washington’s decision this week to sanction two top officials it says have been involved in detaining an American pastor, Andrew Brunson, since 2016. The U.S. says Turkey has no evidence to keep detaining Brunson, an evangelical whose case has been championed by Vice President Mike Pence.

The Trump administration has said it believes Erdogan reneged on an agreement to free Brunson, who is next due to appear in a Turkish court on Oct. 12. A call earlier this year between Trump and Erdogan broke down over the issue of detainees. Besides Brunson, Trump railed about Turkey’s holding of Serkan Golge, a NASA scientist who, like Brunson, has been imprisoned since 2016, according to a person familiar with the call.

While Erdogan’s article didn’t cite Trump by name, the standoff has increasingly had a personal feel to it and it’s not clear how either side can politically afford to lower the rhetorical volume and reach a deal. A one-day visit to Washington by Turkish officials this week produced no solution.

“The United States has repeatedly and consistently failed to understand and respect the Turkish people’s concerns,” Erdogan wrote on Friday. “Unless the United States starts respecting Turkey’s sovereignty and proves that it understands the dangers that our nation faces, our partnership could be in jeopardy.”

— With assistance by Justin Sink, Constantine Courcoulas, and Benjamin Harvey

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-11/erdogan-warns-trump-that-alliance-is-at-risk-as-tensions-climb

The post Erdogan Warns Trump That Alliance Is at Risk as Tensions Climb first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Despite Trump’s push, the heads-of-state confab risks being overshadowed by growing tensions between the U.S. president and European allies, Trump’s policies outside of NATO and his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is scheduled to take place days later.

U.S. ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison told reporters last week that the theme of this year’s summit will be “strength and unity.” And while NATO’s secretary-general noted that the alliance has survived past disputes, he has acknowledged growing divisions among allies.

On the heels of a tense summit for the Group of Seven (G-7) industrialized nations last month, NATO watchers are hoping leaders put on a happy face in Brussels and get through the meeting without any major incidents.

Here are five things to watch at this week’s summit:

Do Trump and other leaders get along?

Allies largely played nice with Trump in the early days of his presidency, hoping to charm him into changing his position on issues such as the Paris climate agreement, tariffs and the Iran nuclear deal.

But Trump defied those efforts and has openly criticized other world leaders, leading to various disputes with the heads of global powers that have long relied on the U.S.

The G-7 appeared to mark a turning point, with Angela Merkel’s office releasing a photo of the German chancellor staring down a cross-armed Trump. And for days after the summit, as Trump prepared for his historic meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the president feuded with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

After Trudeau said Canada would retaliate against Trump’s “kind of insulting” tariffs, Trump called Trudeau “very dishonest and weak” in a tweet and said that the United States would not be signing the G-7’s joint communiqué because of “Justin’s false statements.”

Shortly after his initial volley against Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron on Twitter amid the rolling trade disputes, Trump insisted during a news conference that relations between the U.S. and allied nations was never better, stating, “The level of relationship is a 10. Angela [Merkel], Emmanuel [Macron], Justin [Trudeau]. I would say the relationship is a 10.”

Merkel has drawn particular rancor from Trump, with him tweeting last month that “the people of Germany are turning against their leadership.” And at a campaign rally in Montana last week, Trump also hinted he has told Merkel the U.S. might change its military posture if Germany doesn’t spend more on defense.

“I said, you know, Angela, I can’t guarantee it, but we’re protecting you, and it means a lot more to you than protecting us because I don’t know how much protection we get by protecting you,” Trump said.

What happens on defense spending?

During Trump’s riff at the rally in Montana on Thursday night where he called out Merkel, Trump also labeled the United States “schmucks” for how much it spends compared to allies.

“I’m going to tell NATO, you got to start paying your bills. The United States is not going to take care of everything,” Trump said.

“We are the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing,” he added later.

Greater burden sharing is a refrain that Trump has sounded since his 2016 campaign. But he’s upped the pressure recently, sending letters to Merkel, Trudeau and other NATO leaders suggesting the possibility of a change in U.S. military posture if they don’t increase their defense spending.

Just eight of NATO’s 29 members meet or are expected to meet this year the alliance’s goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense: the United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Lithuania. The goal was set at the 2014 Wales summit, where allies agreed to meet the target by 2024.

Despite growing animosity between Trump and other NATO leaders, experts are expecting allies to continue a four-year trend of upward spending because allies have realized they need to spend more independently of the U.S.

“The Europeans are starting to recognize that they may have to think about what it may look like without the United States there for them,” said James Goldgeier, a professor of international relations at American University.

Will counterterrorism be a focus?

During the presidential campaign, Trump railed against NATO as “obsolete” for what he saw as a lack of focus on counterterrorism.

NATO supporters pushed back on that, highlighting that the only time allies have invoked the mutual defense pact known as Article 5 was after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Last year’s NATO heads-of-state meeting took place days after a terrorist attack in Manchester, England, putting a spotlight on the counterterrorism part of the agenda. At the meeting, NATO officially joined the coalition battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a largely symbolic move that had been in the works for years but took on added importance amid Trump’s criticisms.

This year, Hutchison told reporters that counterterrorism will again be a priority for Trump at the summit.

In line with that, allies are expected to officially launch NATO’s bigger training mission in Iraq to help stabilize the country post-ISIS.

Hutchinson also said Trump will continue to make the case for allies to extend their commitment to Afghanistan, following his announcement of a new strategy last summer that is based on conditions on the ground instead of timelines.

Is Putin the elephant in the room?

Last month’s G-7 in Canada was marred by Trump’s statement on the way there that Russia should be readmitted to the group. Russia was kicked out in 2014 because of its annexation of Crimea, a move Western nations maintain was illegal.

Now, days after Trump meets with NATO leaders, he will head to Helsinki, Finland, for a summit with Putin. That summit is expected to kick off with a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin.

NATO was founded as a buttress against the Soviet Union and has shifted its focus back to Russia after its incursion in Ukraine. In the call with reporters, Hutchison said that NATO’s “strengthened deterrence and defense” is needed in light of the “the malign activities of Russia.”

But allies are nervous about Trump being in a room alone with Putin and what concessions he might make in an effort to forge a deal, such as whether he will recognize Russia’s claim over Crimea. Trump has left the door open to doing so, saying “we’re going to have to see.”

Allies are also worried about Trump unilaterally scuttling military exercises in Europe. Trump decided to cancel joint military exercises with South Korea during his summit with Kim last month. In doing so, Trump labeled the exercises “provocative,” an argument Putin has made against NATO exercises in Eastern Europe.

Do non-NATO issues spoil the mood?

While allies are rankled about Trump’s comments on spending and military posture, much of the strain in U.S. relations with allies has come from issues technically outside the scope of NATO.

That includes Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on imported steel and 10 percent tariffs on imported aluminum from the European Union and Canada, as well as Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and Paris climate accord against allies’ wishes.

Ahead of the NATO defense minister’s meeting last month, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said those represent “serious disagreements” among allies. He also warned in a Guardian op-ed weeks later that “nowhere is it written in stone that the transatlantic bond will always thrive.”

But he’s also said NATO can continue with its “core tasks” in spite of the divisions.

“We have to remember that we have seen differences before, all the way back to the 1950s where NATO allies disagreed on the Suez crisis or when France decided to leave the command structure in the 1960s or the Iraq War in 2003,” Stoltenberg said.

“So it’s nothing new that there are difference between NATO allies, and what we have seen again and again is that we have been able to unite around NATO’s core task to protect and defend each other despite those difference.”

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395882-5-things-to-watch-as-trump-heads-to-nato-summit

The post 5 things to watch as Trump heads to NATO summit first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The dispute has raised questions over Merkel’s future, as nationalist forces already in power elsewhere in Europe turn up the heat on the long-serving German chancellor for her welcoming stance toward migrants.

Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday said she expected German military expenditure to rise steadily in coming years, in line with Berlin’s pledge to meet a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation target of moving toward spending 2 percent of economic output by 2024.

Merkel argues that Germany must not take the sudden and unilateral step of rejecting asylum seekers at the border, which would add to the burden faced by frontline countries like Italy and Greece.

But Seehofer reportedly told her the European Union had failed to forge a common policy since the refugee crisis erupted in 2015 and it was hardly credible to think it would do so by the end of the month.A Bundestag session was interrupted for two hours on Thursday morning so Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister party the CSU, to which Seehofer belongs, could hold separate emergency meetings.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing strong pressure to tighten her country’s refugee policies to avoid the collapse of her coalition government as the heated row over the handling of migration intensifies.

That would represent a reversal of Merkel’s open-doors migrant policy adopted in 2015, which fuelled a rise in support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and caused rifts within her conservative bloc.

The scuffle forced plenary to suspend Bundestag on Thursday for most of day and both conservative parties – Merkel’s CDU and CSU – met exceptionally separately with emissaries running from one room to anor in building.

Merkel objects to part of Seehofer’s plan which allows German authorities to reject migrants who reach German borders, drawn by the country’s prosperity and stability if they have already registered in other European Union states to the south.

However, hardline Bavarian state premier Markus Soeder showed little sign of backing down, insisting Germany must start rejecting migrants at its borders and it was pointless waiting for a European solution.
The CDU and the Social Democrats (SPD) alone lack a majority in parliament. His plan would allow police to turn away migrants who have already sought asylum in another European Union nation.

“The task of governing our country isn’t an episode of Game of Thrones, but a serious matter”, Olaf Scholz said on Twitter.

For the chancellor, the only sustainable solution would be a Europe-wide agreement – a point she will likely push when she meets later Tuesday with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, whose country would be hardest hit if Germany were to close its doors.

Merkel has the backing for now of the third party in her coalition, the Social Democratic Party.

Source: http://10thousandcouples.com/2018/06/hardline-eu-ministers-form-axis-of-the-willing-against/

The post Hardline EU ministers form ‘axis of the willing’ against illegal migrants first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

> U.S. and IDF troops, in major joint drill, simulating battle on 3 fronts
> Amid rising tension with Iran, Israel to join largest int’l navy exercise

A US M1 Abrams tank fires during the “Saber Strike” NATO military exercise in Adazi, Latvia, June 11, 2016.. (photo credit: REUTERS)

Israel is participating for the first time in two simultaneous large-scale international exercises in Europe, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office announced on Monday.

IDF paratroopers will participate in the Swift Response exercise, which will be held in Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, with the participation of a paratroopers unit that will train with the 173rd Brigade of the European Command of the US Army.

Thousands of soldiers from 10 different countries will participate in the exercise, including Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland and Portugal.

Swift Response will feature airborne exercises, joint forcible entry personnel and equipment drops, air assault operations, a force buildup using a short takeoff and landing strip and noncombatant evacuation operations.

“This is the first time the IDF has participated in a international exercise of the European Command,” read the IDF statement.

“The objective of the exercise is to improve the ability for mutual cooperation between the participating armies.”

In addition to Swift Response, more IDF paratroopers will take part in European Command’s Saber Strike exercise, in which more than 18,000 fighters from 19 countries, including Poland, Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will participate.

An annual drill, the objective of this year’s Saber Strike will be to train and drill the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) enhanced forward presence with a focus on promoting interoperability and improving joint operational capability in a variety of land missions.

The exercise, which will occur in several Eastern European countries, will also drill troops on contending with air strikes and tank warfare of foreign forces.

According to the US Army, “these exercises demonstrate the command’s continued commitment to NATO allies and partners by maintaining its war-fighting edge and ability for crisis response.”

The drill will last until June 15 on NATO’s eastern flank and, according to European Command, is “a demonstration of the commitment and solidarity of the Alliance” at a time when Russia’s military maneuvers have concerned NATO members.

With Russia’s increasingly assertive maneuvers in the region, NATO’s strategic interest in the eastern Mediterranean is increasing, and in late May, the British HMS Duncan and Spanish frigate Victoria, commissioned by NATO forces, docked in Israel’s Haifa Port ahead of joint exercises with the IDF.

In December, the HMS Ocean, the flagship of the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2, docked in Haifa port before taking part in several joint exercises with the Israel Navy and Air Force.

The announcement of Israel’s participation comes shortly after NATO’s secretary- general Jens Stoltenberg told Germany’s Der Spiegel that the alliance wouldn’t come to Israel’s defense in case of attack by Iran.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-participating-in-two-large-scale-military-drills-in-Europe-559106

The post Israel participating in two large scale military drills in Europe first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Since the start of the Cold War, Turkey has been one of the United States’ top allies in a region not known for pro-American sentiment.

It joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1952, helping the U.S. build a bulwark against the Soviet Union. It opened its bases to U.S. warplanes during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the more recent fight against Islamic State. Its progressive Muslim democracy was once touted as a model for other Middle Eastern countries.

Now, the two sides can’t even agree on what was said in a phone call.

That call, held Wednesday between President Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was the Trump administration’s most recent attempt at repairing a relationship that reached a new nadir this week, with Ankara accusing Washington of establishing what it called a “terror corridor” in northern Syria.

Turkey also threatened military action against American soldiers standing in the way of an offensive, dubbed “Operation Olive Branch,” to rout a Syrian Kurdish militia that Ankara regards as a terrorist group — but which the U.S. has fashioned as its on-the-ground vanguard against the militant group Islamic State. (Ankara insists the Syrian Kurds have ties to a Kurdish separatist movement it has fought at home for decades.)

The offensive, which began late last week, developed into a no-holds-barred assault on the Syrian Kurdish enclave of Afrin with ground troops and Syrian rebels fighting to breach Kurdish defensive lines.

The White House said Trump had “urged Turkey to de-escalate, limit its military actions, and avoid civilian casualties and increases to [the numbers of] displaced persons and refugees.” It went on to say that the president “urged Turkey to exercise caution and to avoid any actions that might risk conflict between Turkish and American forces.”

That last reference was to U.S. troops who patrol the Syrian city of Manbij, about 60 miles east of Afrin.

It was at least the third time the administration has complained about Turkish attacks, to no apparent effect, even as the Turkish military said two soldiers and more than 260 “terrorists” had been killed so far in the operation.

“We will not leave the blood of our martyrs on the ground and will continue our struggle until we root out terror,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.

The White House said that Trump also “expressed concern about destructive and false rhetoric coming from Turkey,” eliciting a truculent rebuke from Ankara, which insisted that the American president did not raise objections to the Turkish military operation and that the two men merely “exchanged views.”

Also on Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Nechirvan Barzani, the prime minister of Iraq’s Kurdish region, on the sidelines of the Davos, Switzerland, economic conference. To a reporter’s question, Tillerson denied he had proposed creating a roughly 18-mile-wide safe zone along the Turkish-Syrian border in an earlier conversation with Cavusoglu.

“We spoke about a number of possible options, but we did not propose anything,” Tillerson said.

Afrin has long been the site where the United States’ knotty policy toward the Kurds was most evident. In the earlier years of the Syrian war, Kurdish troops were trained and equipped by the Pentagon and fought against CIA-backed rebel factions in areas around the Kurdish enclave.

Then, as now, U.S. officials maintained they would support the Kurds in areas east of the Euphrates River as well as Manbij against Islamic State, but considered Afrin and the Kurdish militiamen stationed there to be a separate entity.

Those contradictions could be ignored as long as Islamic State was a factor. But the group’s defeat, not to mention the creation of a Kurdish-led Border Security Force, put the U.S. on a collision course with Ankara.

The Border Security Force was the last straw for Turkey’s political leadership, which touted the operation in Afrin as a war not just against Kurdish forces, but also against the United States.

“Obviously this is a tense situation,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said this week. “We are calling on the Turks to de-escalate the situation. We’re calling for a decrease in violence and that’s something that is extremely important to us.”

Yet there is little evidence that Ankara is in the mood for a de-escalation, especially before a Turkish public that views the operation as proof of a newfound bravado.

The country appears to be gripped by a patriotic frenzy. The Turkish religious affairs directorate organized special prayers for the soldiers taking part in the operation, with verses from the Koranic chapter entitled “Conquest” read out at tens of thousands of mosques the evening the operation began and the morning after.

Turkish news channels have covered the operation extensively, with anchors trumpeting troop advances in front of green screens depicting computer-generated fighter jets and tanks spitting fiery shells.

Pro-government and opposition politicians have also raced to applaud the offensive.

In Hatay province, where Turkish soldiers and armor are being staged for the incursion across the border in Syria, mothers cooked meals and passed them out to soldiers waiting to be deployed. Dozens of members of an Ottoman-style military marching band performed for soldiers.

“There have always been a few loonies who want to fight abroad, like in the Chechen war, or in Bosnia or Kosovo,” said Umut Ozkirimli, of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, who studies Turkish nationalism. “But now it is more of a national hysteria.”

Meanwhile, anyone in Turkey questioning the operation, Erdogan said, was a traitor. He singled out the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party, which has called for protests against the incursion.

“Nobody should take this call seriously,” Erdogan said. “They will pay the heavy price. This is a national struggle. We would crush anybody who opposes this. There will be no compromises or tolerance on this issue.”

Among more than 150 people detained since the start of the operation were two leaders from the party. Even though it is the second largest opposition party in parliament, more than a dozen of its lawmakers face terrorism charges because of views that the government says support the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

In Istanbul’s Kadikoy neighborhood, popular with opposition voters, police detained 11 people at a protest against the operation, and prosecutors later charged them with participating in an unlawful demonstration. Authorities in several provinces in the predominantly Kurdish southeast imposed a blanket ban on demonstrations against the operation.

The operation has also fanned anti-American fervor.

“That the U.S. … is targeting not only Syria and Iraq but also Turkey is no longer a debate,” wrote Ibrahim Karagul, a columnist with the Turkish daily Yeni Safak.

There are other fissures in the relationship between the two countries. Erdogan and his aides have accused Washington of protecting Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric who they say orchestrated a failed 2016 military coup and is a terrorist. The Justice Department has said there are no grounds to extradite the cleric, who has lived in rural Pennsylvania for nearly two decades.

Trump also complained that several U.S. citizens and local U.S. Embassy employees were among those targeted by a government-led crackdown after the coup attempt, when Turkish authorities arrested or fired tens of thousands of teachers, journalists, judges, human rights activists and others.

There is debate within the administration about whether the relationship with Ankara can be repaired. Some experts believe Washington will eventually slap Turkey with sanctions related to banking practices, weapons purchases and the detention of an American pastor.

“If the U.S. doesn’t attach repercussions to its concerns, and make those repercussions high enough, it is not likely they will be listened to,” Howard Eissenstat, an expert on Turkey at St. Lawrence University, said.

Special correspondents Farooq and Bulos reported from Istanbul and Aleppo, Syria, respectively, and Times staff writer Wilkinson from Washington.

tracy.wilkinson@latimes.com

The post Turkey and the U.S. used to be close allies. Today, they can’t even agree on a phone call first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.