Tag Archives: president

NATO invents Russian threats in the Baltic – but Putin’s next big play is Greece Updated for 2026





Russian President Vladimir Putin will “launch a campaign of undercover attacks to destabilise the Baltic states on Nato’s eastern flank”, the Telegraph reports today – along with all other mainstream news media.

How do we know this? Because the UK’s Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said so. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia watch out – the Russian peril is fast coming your way.

“There are lots of worries”, Fallon told the newspaper. “I’m worried about Putin. There’s no effective control of the border, I’m worried about his pressure on the Baltics, the way he is testing NATO, the submarines and aircraft … They are modernising their conventional forces, they are modernising their nuclear forces and they are testing NATO, so we need to respond.”

Covert attack by Russia on the Baltic states is “a very real and present danger”, Fallon insisted. Now where did we hear that before? Ah yes. On 16th December 1998 President Bill Clinton said that that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present dangerto the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.

We all know where that led: the Iraq war followed a few years later. We also know that the claim was a monstrous untruth: Saddam had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. So why should we believe Fallon now? Where is his evidence? He has none. When you already know the truth, who needs evidence?

Fallon – and NATO – should keep their eyes on the ball

But while Fallon’s attention is focused on the imaginary threat to the Baltic states, there is another country that really could be ‘at risk’ – and not because of cyber-attack, invasion by ‘green men’ or a campaign of destabilisation emanating from the Kremlin.

No, the EU, the European Central Bank, the IMF and European finance ministers have already been doing all the destabilisation that’s needed – forcing Greece into a deep programme of austerity that has seen the economy shrink by 25% over five years, the closure of vital public services, mass unemployment and the forced sell-off of public assets.

And now the Greeks – and their newly elected Syriza government – have had enough. This week the Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras flatly refused to renew the €240 billion ‘bailout’ package, which comes with all the austerity strings, and he today advanced proposals for a ‘six-month assistance package’ free of harsh conditions to give Greece time to renegotiate its debt.

The standoff continues, and will be decided tomorrow by EU finance ministers. It’s not looking good: Germany has already stated that the Greek proposal “does not meet the conditions”. But if the finance minsters don’t agree, then what?

You guessed it: Tsipras will turn to Russia. Earlier this month Tsipras and Putin agreed on a range of bilateral ties, including the construction of a pipeline that would carry Russian natural gas from the Turkish border across Greece to the other countries of southern Europe.

This follows the re-routing of the ‘South Stream’ pipeline, which had been due to cross Bulgaria but was effectively blocked by the EU’s retrospective application of energy market rules, under heavy pressure from the USA. Last November and December Putin negotiated the pipeline’s realignment across Turkey with Turkish President Erdogan – right up to the Greek border.

Following the agreement between Putin and Tsipras, which came complete with an invitation to Moscow on Victory over the Nazis day, 9th May, the pipeline link to the major countries of southern Europe is now complete, at least on paper. And once it’s built, Greece will effectively control – and profit from – that gas supply, and take a strategic position in Europe’s energy landscape.

But Greece is a NATO member!

Greece’s increasingly warm relationship with Russia is already causing concern among other EU and NATO countries. German Defense Minister Ursula von Der Leyen has said that Greece was “putting at risk its position in the NATO alliance with its approach to Russia.”

This provoked a fierce retort from Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos who branded the attack as “unacceptable and extortionate” – noting that “Greece was always on the side of the Allies when they pushed back German occupation troops.”

“Statements that replace the EU and NATO’s institutional bodies are unacceptable as blackmailing”, he added. “They undermine the European institutions except if Germany’s aim is to dissolve the European Union and the NATO.”

So if Tsipras’s refinancing proposal is refused tomorrow will Greece quit NATO and the EU, to join the Eurasian Union? Not if Mr Putin gets his way: Greece is worth much more to Russia as an ally within the EU and NATO than outside – where it can veto more trade sanctions against Russia, block the TTIP and CETA trade deals with the USA and Canada, and oppose NATO’s increasing belligerence from within.

But we could see Greece simply renouncing its manifestly unpayable and unjust €320 billion national debt, and quitting the Eurozone straitjacket – while receiving an emergency liquidity package from Russia to support the launch of the New Drachma.

In fact, we could see a re-run of important elements of the Ukraine play of December 2013, when Russia offered a support package under which it would buy $15 billion in bonds from Ukraine, supporting its collapsing currency, and supply it with deeply discounted gas – £268 per cubic metre rather than the maarket price of $400.

A $15 billion purchase of New Drachma denominated Greek bonds would be a superb launch for Greece’s new currency, and would firmly cement Greece’s long term alliance with Russia, providing it with a valuable long term bridgehead into both the EU and NATO.

This move would also give inspiration and confidence to progressive political movements across Europe that take inspiration from Syriza’s fight for economic justice – in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, the UK and beyond – and bear the powerful message: there is an alternative.

And while NATO, the EU, the USA and their loyal servants, among them the UK’s Michael Fallon, deliberately whip up a fictitious threat in the Baltic, ignoring the real danger they face to the south, the masterly Mr Putin would once again make fools of them all.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist, but this article is written in a personal capacity.

 




390438

US-China climate deal raises hopes of agreement in 2015 Updated for 2026





An agreement reached in Beijing between US President Barack Obama and China’s President Xi has set a goal for the US to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% by 2025, relative to 2005 levels.

The two countries also agreed on a target to ensure that the temperature rise from man-made climate change should be limited to 2 degrees C.

China’s commitment lacked specific targets: rather the country, currently the world’s biggest emitter, promised that its emissions would peak in or before 2030. It’s the first such commitment that China has ever made.

As the two countries together produce about 45% of the world’s CO2, agreement between them on climate and their future emissions trajectories has long been considered essential to reaching a meaningful agreement at the 2015 UN climate summit in Paris, to reduce emissions beyond 2020.

“We agreed to make sure that international climate change negotiations will reach an agreement in Paris”, Mr X told reporters.

This is what manifestly failed to take place in Copenhagen in 2009 – with the result that the meeting was an abject failure.

‘Historic’ agreement

Mr Obama described the agreement as “historic”, and promised US support for China’s efforts to “slow, peak and then reverse the course of China’s carbon emissions.”

But he faces a political battle at home with the climate change denying Republican party holding firm majorities in both houses of congress.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell complained of “this unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs.”

However the deal was welcomed by the increasingly influential 350.org, whose Executive Director May Boeve took it as “a sign that President Obama is taking his climate legacy seriously and is willing to stand up to big polluters.”

She added that it should also come as a warning to fossil fuel companies and investors to stop sinking money in ‘unburnable’ carbon, and “strengthens the case for fossil fuel divestment.”

“The US and China reaffirming their commitment to limiting global warming to 2°C should send shockwaves through the financial markets, because the only way to meet that target is by leaving 80% of fossil fuel reserves underground.

“The industry’s business plan is simply incompatible with the pathways laid out today. It’s time to get out of fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions.”

US pledge ‘a drop in the ocean’, says FoE

Dipti Bhatnagar of Friends of the Earth International welcomed China’s commitment. “China is taking the fight against climate change ever more seriously and intends to peak its emissions in next 15 years”, he said.

“We urge China and all nations to urgently switch from emissions-causing dirty energy to community-based renewable energy.” But the US pledges were “just a drop in the ocean”, he insisted. “These figures are very far from being the sea of change we urgently need from the US government.”

His colleague Sara Shaw, FOEI’s Climate Justice and Energy coordinator, added:

“The cuts pledged by President Obama are nowhere near what the US needs to cut if it was serious about preventing runaway climate change. These US voluntary pledges are not legally binding and are not based on science or equity.”

“Industrialised nations, and first of all the world’s largest historical polluter, the US, must urgently make the deepest emission cuts and provide the bulk of the money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change.

“Disgracefully, today’s announcement ignores the fact that developing countries urgently need finance and technology to transform their energy systems and adapt to climate change.”

 




386729