GENEVA, June 16 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin square up on Wednesday for their first meeting since Biden took office with deep disagreements likely and expectations low for any breakthroughs.

Both have said they hope their talks in a lakeside Geneva villa can lead to more stable and predictable relations, even though they remain at odds over everything from arms control and cyber-hacking to election interference and Ukraine.

“We’re not expecting a big set of deliverables out of this meeting,” a senior U.S. official told reporters aboard Air Force One as Biden flew to Geneva, saying the two are expected to talk for four or five hours starting at around 1.30 p.m. (1130 GMT).

Putin arrived in Geneva on Wednesday, Reuters TV footage showed.

“I’m not sure that any agreements will be reached,” said Putin’s foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov.

Relations have deteriorated for years, notably with Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, its 2015 intervention in Syria, and U.S. charges – denied by Moscow – of its meddling in the 2016 election that brought Donald Trump to the White House.

They sank further in March when Biden said he thought Putin was a “killer”, prompting Russia to recall its ambassador to Washington for consultations. The United States recalled its ambassador in April.

The senior U.S. official said the United States was looking at “areas where working together can advance our national interests and make the world safer.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said whether or not to send back ambassadors would be decided by the two presidents. “Today the presidents will need to determine how to proceed with the heads of the diplomatic missions,” Peskov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

While the issues may be vexing, the surroundings will be serene when the presidents meet in Villa La Grange, an elegant mansion set in a 30-hectare (nearly 75-acre) park overlooking Lake Geneva.

LOCKDOWN

On Wednesday, the summit perimeter was under a tight lockdown with heavy police presence. Following a their bilateral meeting, Biden and Putin will continue on to their discussions with broader U.S. and Russian delegations including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, along with interpreters.

Arms control is one domain where progress has historically been possible despite wider disagreements.

In February, Russia and the United States extended for five years the New START treaty, which caps their deployed strategic nuclear warheads and limits the land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers to deliver them.

The senior U.S. official said Biden would also define areas of vital national interest where Russian misconduct would bring a response. Biden signed an executive order in April giving Washington wide latitude to impose sanctions on Moscow.

In a sign of the strained ties, the talks will not include any meals, and Putin and Biden are expected to hold separate news conferences rather than a joint one.

“No breaking of bread,” said the senior U.S. official.

Vladimir Frolov, a former Russian diplomat, told Reuters Putin wanted respectful ties and to be treated like members of the Soviet Politburo were in the 1960s-1980s, with “a symbolic recognition of Russia’s geopolitical parity with the U.S.”

“In exchange, they (Moscow) would be willing to cut back on some of the loony stuff,” Frolov said, saying he meant “no poisonings, no physical violence, no arrests/kidnappings of U.S. and Russian nationals. No interference in domestic politics.”

Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, set the bar for Wednesday’s talks low.

“The principal takeaway, in the positive sense, from the Geneva meeting would be making sure that the United States and Russia did not come to blows physically so that a military collision is averted,” he said.

In contrast to Trump, whose 2018 summit with Putin in Helsinki included a meeting accompanied only by interpreters, Biden and Putin are not expected to have any solo dealings.

Standing beside Putin in Helsinki, Trump refused to blame the Russian leader for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, casting doubt on the findings of his own intelligence agencies and sparking a storm of domestic criticism.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/wide-disagreements-low-expectations-biden-putin-meet-2021-06-15/

The post Wide disagreements, low expectations as Biden, Putin meet first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

EU countries are ready to impose new sanctions against Russia over the poisoning and imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Euronews has learned. A political decision is expected as early as next week.

The move comes after the widely-criticized visit of Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign affairs chief to Moscow.

The first set of EU sanctions over the Navalny case was introduced in October, targeting six individuals and one entity believed to be involved in the poisoning of the Kremlin critic. No further action has been taken since he was jailed in early February.

Speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, diplomatic sources told Euronews that there will likely be a political decision on the topic during next week’s Foreign Affairs Council.

The decision will then be referred to technical teams to prepare the lists of Russian individuals which will then be sent to EU ambassadors for review and approval. The consensus among member states is helping to speed up the process.

In the best-case scenario, the sanctions could be adopted by European leaders when they come together at the end of March.

Magnitsky Act

Brussels plans to use, for the first time, its recently established sanctions regime, similar to the Magnitsky Act in America.

This mechanism enables the 27 member states to punish those considered responsible for human rights abuses through the freezing of assets and travel bans.

However, sources note that there are still some differences concerning the approach and the form of these sanctions, stemming from the long-standing disagreements inside the bloc on how to handle Russia.

Countries like Poland and the Baltic states have always defended a hardline position and they would like the European Council to impose restrictive measures immediately.

Others, such as Germany, France, Greece, and Cyprus, which have traditionally closer ties with the Russian Federation, prefer to avoid extreme solutions and would rather have sanctions in place while keeping the channels of communication open.

Moreover, Croatia and Slovakia are eyeing a purchase of Sputnik V, Russia’s homegrown COVID-19 vaccine. Hungary is already using the jab as part of its vaccination campaign.

The Nord Stream 2 project, a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, which is nearing completion, is another thorny question in the complex EU-Russia agenda, although no member state has so far brought it up during the ongoing discussions.

Decisions on foreign affairs at EU level require unanimity among member states, which often slows down – or altogether impedes – taking decisive action.

Last year, Cyprus blocked EU sanctions against Belarus because the bloc refused to act in a similar manner against Turkey over its activities in the Eastern Mediterranean. The fallout from that blockage, which made international headlines, led to the establishment of the Magnitsky Act-style regime three months later.

Action on Ankara is still an option, but remains stuck at technical level. A recent change in attitude by the government of Recep Erdoğan, together with the inauguration of US President Joe Biden, has lessened the sense of urgency.

Neither Cyprus nor Greece are expected to obstruct the Russian process.

“The two cases [Russia and Turkey] cannot be directly linked, but EU solidarity is a two-way street and member states which are now asking for solidarity, didn’t offer it when needed by others,” a diplomat told Euronews.

Sanctions but also dialogue

The new raft of sanctions follows Borrell’s controversial visit to Moscow, which was described as “a complete disaster” by MEPs. During a press conference alongside Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov, Borrell shocked some when he publicly said the EU had no plans to impose further sanctions.

The intervention was met with immediate criticism. Borrell later corrected himself and told the European Parliament that sanctions were still a possibility and that he would come up with his own proposal.

Borrell’s words prompted Lavrov to announce that Russia was ready to break off relations with the EU if such punitive measures were to be imposed.

Lavrov suggested the EU’s decision to admit Baltic and Eastern European members 15 years ago had contributed to the current poor state of relations.

Diplomatic sources don’t share Lavrov’s uncompromising thinking.

“We want to keep the channels of dialogue open and, for sure, there is no appetite to further push Russia [in]to the arms of China because cutting ties with the EU is increasing [Russia’s] dependence on China,” said an EU diplomat.

Regarding Borrell, the official said there was initial disappointment and surprise with his performance, especially when he didn’t strike back when Lavrov condemned the EU as an “unreliable partner”.

Nevertheless, national ministers remain united behind the EU’s chief diplomat, something they consider necessary to face the Russian challenge together.

The new US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, will take part in next week’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting, after accepting an invitation from Borrell. Relations with Russia and China will be the two main topics that EU ministers will tackle with his American counterpart.

Source: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/18/eu-is-ready-to-impose-new-sanctions-against-russia-over-navalny

The post EU is ‘ready to impose new sanctions’ against Russia over Navalny first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

It is with prudence and determination that the Russian Federation and President Trump put a definitive end to the domination of the world by transnational interests.

Convinced that the balance of powers does not depend on their economics but rather on their military capacities, President Putin has certainly reinvigorated the quality of life for his compatriots, but he developed the Red Army before making the Russians rich. On 1 March, he revealed to the world the principal weapons in his arsenal and the beginning of his programme for economic development.

In the days that followed, the war was concentrated in the Eastern Ghouta. Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri Guerassimov telephoned his US counterpart, General Joseph Dunford ,and told him that in the case of US military intervention, Russian forces would target the 53 US ships in the Mediterranean and the Gulf, including their nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Above all, he requested that President Trump be made aware of his country’s new military capacities.

Finally, the United States allowed the Syrian Arab Army and a few Russian infantry-men to free the Ghouta of the jihadists who occupied it.

Only the United Kingdom attempted to anticipate events by organising the « Skripal affair » – if the current world order were to collapse, we would once again have to employ the rhetoric of the Cold War, which set the kindly cowboys against the big bad Russian Bears.

In June, when the Syrian Arab Army, supported by the Russian Air Force, moved into the South of the country, the US embassy in Jordan warned the jihadists that as from now, they would have to defend themselves alone, without the aid or the support of the Pentagon and the CIA.

On 16 July in Helsinki, Presidents Putin and Trump went a lot further. They broached the subject of reconstruction, in other words, war damage. Donald Trump, as we have been writing here for the last two years, is opposed to the Puritan ideology, financial capitalism and the imperialism which is a direct result. He rightly assumes that his country is in no way obliged to bear the consequences of the crimes of his predecessors, of which his people had also been victims. He affirms that these crimes had been committed at the instigation, and for the profit, of the elite transnational financiers. He therefore considers that it is for them to pay, even though no-one knows precisely how to make them do so.

The two Presidents also agreed to facilitate the return of the refugees. By doing so, Donald Trump overthrew the rhetoric of his predecessor, according to which they were escaping « dictatorial repression » and not the invasion by the jihadists.

While in the South of the country, the jihadists were themselves fleeing before the Syrian and Russian forces, and a few desperate units of Daesh were committing unimaginable atrocities, the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergeï Lavrov, and the Russian Chief of Staff, Valeri Guerassimov, undertook a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

They were welcomed as discreetly as possible in the European Union. Indeed, according to the Western narrative, General Guerassimov is a conquistador who invaded and annexed Crimea. He is therefore forbidden access to the Union, a self-proclaimed defender of the « rule of law ». Unfortunately, since it was too late to remove his name from the list of sanctions, the Union decided to close its eyes to the grand principles and make an exception, allowing a visit by the hero of the reunification of Crimea and Russia. The shame which swamped the West-European leaders when faced with their own hypocrisy may explain the absence of official photographs of the hearings for the Russian delegation.

The Russian delegation resumed for each of its interlocutors a few of the decisions taken at the Helsinki Summit. Acting wisely, it abstained from asking for accounts concerning the role of each state during the war, calling on them only to help end it – withdrawal of the special forces, cessation of the secret war, suppression of the aid to the jihadists, return of the refugees, reopening of the embassies. In particular, it confirmed that everyone could participate in the reconstruction, all inclusive.

As soon as the delegation left, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron craftily interrogated the Pentagon in order to find out if it was true that President Donald Trump intended to make certain transnational companies pay (KKR, Lafarge, etc.) – just to destabilise the folks on the other side of the Atlantic. The attitude of President Macron, ex-bank executive, is all the more deplorable in that he tried to symbolise his good faith by offering 44 tonnes of humanitarian aid to the Syrian population, transmitted by the Russian army.

In the Middle East, the visit by the Russian delegation was more widely covered by the media. Lavrov and Guerassimov were able to announce the creation of five committees for the return of the refugees. Each committee, in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan, includes representatives of the host state, together with Russian and Syrian delegates. Yet no-one dared to ask the hard question – why would a committee like this not include the European Union?

Concerning the reopening of the embassies, the United Arab Emirates stole a march on the Westerners and their allies by negotiating the reopening of their own.

What was left was the Israëli preoccupation with obtaining Syria’s departure from the Iranian military advisors and the pro-Iranian militias, including Hezbollah. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu multiplied his return trips to and from Moscow and Sotchi in order to defend his cause. We may remember that Guerassimov had ironised about the nerve of the beaten Israëlis demanding the removal of the Iranian victors. As for Lavrov, he diplomatically ducked behind a refus de principe concerning interference in Syria’s sovereignty.

Russia solved the problem – Russian military police re-installed UNO forces along the line of demarcation between Syria and Israël, from which they had been ejected four years ago. During this whole period, they were replaced by Al-Qaïda, supported by Tsahal. Behind the line of demarcation, in Syrian territory, Russia has also installed eight military observation posts. In this way, Moscow can guarantee both to the UNO and Syria that the jihadists will not come back, and to Israël that Iran will not attack from Syria.

Israël, which until now had been betting on the defeat of the Syrian Arab Republic, and qualified its President as a « butcher », suddenly admitted by the voice of its Minister for Defence, Avigdor Liberman, that Syria was the victor of the conflict, and that President el-Assad was its legitimate head. In order to demonstrate his good will, Liberman ordered the bombing of a group of Daesh jihadists that until now he had kept in reserve.

Little by little, the Russian Federation and the White House are putting some order into international relations, and convincing various protagonists to withdraw from the war, and even to offer bids for the reconstruction. From its side, the Syrian Arab Army continues the liberation of it territory. It remains for President Trump to manage to withdraw his troops from the South (Al-Tanf) and the North of the country (East of the Euphrates), and for President Erdoğan to abandon the jihadist refugees in the North-West (Idleb) to their destiny.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article202314.html

The post How Putin and Trump put an end to the war against Syria first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

While Jerusalem’s voice is heard, its positions are often not fully taken into account.

The post Can Israeli Diplomacy pull its weight against Russia, Iran and Syria? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

JERUSALEM, Israel – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a stunning admission on Tuesday.  He said Russia had not promised that Iranian and pro-Iranian forces would withdraw from Syria.

Lavrov’s statement followed Sunday’s announcement of a Memorandum of Principles (MoP) signed by Russia, the United States and Jordan. According to a U.S. official, the MoP “enshrine[d] the commitment of the U.S., Russia and Jordan to eliminate the presence of non-Syrian foreign forces.”  Presumably that would include Iranian forces, but Lavrov disagreed. He told reporters, “No one mentioned Iran or pro-Iranian forces, somebody might be tempted to call the entire Syrian Army pro-Iranian, and then what – it should surrender?  In my opinion, it is wishful thinking.”

So why is this important and could this be more one more factor leading the Middle East to a wider war?

While Russia says Iran can remain in Syria, Israel has pledged it won’t tolerate an Iranian military presence close to its border. Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu warned Tuesday that “Iran is scheming to entrench itself in Syria. They want to create a permanent air, land and sea military presence. We are not going to agree to that. I have said very clearly that Israel will work to stop this, and we must all work together to stop Iran’s aggression and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. If we stand together we will achieve it. But if we have to, we will stand alone. Iran will not get nuclear weapons; it will not turn Syria into a military base against Israel.”

Related

Russia, Iran, Turkey Say Dialogue Will End Syrian Conflict

Iranian Encroachment in Syria Tops Meeting Agenda Between Netanyahu and Putin

Joel Rosenberg: Syria is Trump vs. Putin

Yet Iran seems determined to “turn Syria into a military base against Israel.”  A recent BBC report showed satellite images of an Iranian base under construction close to Damascus and not far from Israel.

This confrontation involving Iran, Syria and Israel has been brewing. Earlier this year, we reported about Iran’s growing influence in Syria and the danger it poses to the Middle East, Israel and the possibility of war.

Middle East analyst Caroline Glick told CBN News Syria is flooded with Iranian troops.

“The Syrian military is Iranian. Hezbollah is Iranian, of course. Iran is Iranian and they have an unlimited number of troops they can bring in at will and they are bringing to Syria from Afghanistan, from Pakistan,” Glick explained. “It’s basically a bottomless well of personnel that Iran can bring over as cannon fodder for its hegemonic aims in the Middle East.”

Avi Melamed, author of “Inside the Middle East” warned Iran is trying to create a land bridge to Lebanon on the Mediterranean that would post a great danger to Israel.

“Because you have to remember that the Iranian regime vows the elimination of the State of Israel …  [They’re] trying to launch a military front against Israel on the Golan Heights. This could result in a massive eruption because Israel will not stand for that and rightly so,” Melamed said.

It remains to be seen if the Middle East will see one more “massive eruption” soon.

---

Source: http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2017/november/is-the-middle-east-headed-for-war

[Disclaimer]

The post Is the Middle East Headed for War? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement that the two will discuss the latest developments in the region as part of ongoing regular talks held every few months in order to discuss bilateral and regional issues and in order to prevent friction between the Israeli and Russian air forces in Syria.

The meeting, which has yet to be confirmed by Russian sources, comes amid reports of growing concern in Israel over the Russian-United States brokered ceasefire in southern Syria, and especially over Iran’s growing presence in Syria. Jerusalem is particularly concerned about Iranian attempts to gain a foothold on the Golan Heights border.

When the ceasefire was announced July 7, Israel stated that it was “utterly opposed” to the deal, which it believes allows Iran to gain a foothold in Syria to use as a launchpad for attacks against it.

Following the announcement of the ceasefire, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “I can guarantee that we have done everything and the US side has done everything to ensure that Israel’s security interests within this framework are fully taken into account.”

Amnon Sella, Professor Emeritus for Soviet and Russian studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said ahead of the meeting that Israel’s main concern was preventing the “influence of Iran coming closer and closer to Israel’s borders.”

“The closer Iran is coming to Israel’s borders there will be more attempts to send advanced weapons systems to Hezbollah… this of course calls for a great deal of coordination between Israel and Russia so that they do not come to clash,” Sela said.

Mossad head Yossi Cohen visited Washington last week to meet with US security officials including National Security Adviser H.R McMasters in talks that were believed to have focused on security matters of concern to Israel in Lebanon and Syria.

Prior to leaving for Washington, Cohen issued a warning in a briefing to government ministers that Iran is filling the vacuum left as ISIS’s hold on territory in Syria and Iraq wanes.

Netanyahu followed up on Cohen’s briefing by warning that Israel would not allow Iran to fill the vacuum on its borders.

“Today we received a review from the head of the Mossad about the security challenges we face. I will summarize it on one sentence – ISIS out, Iran in. We are talking mainly about Syria,” Netanyahu said.

“Our policy is clear,” he added. “We strongly oppose the military buildup of Iran and its proxies, first and foremost Hezbollah in Syria, and we will do everything necessary to maintain Israel’s security.”

Source: https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/93528/netanyahu-meet-putin-amid-concerns-irans-syria-presence/

The post Netanyahu To Meet With Putin Amid Concerns Over Iran’s Syria Presence first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.