Tag Archives: obama

George Fridman si o teorie despre Moscova

Iată că professor Friedman / Stratfor raționalizează conflictul ucrainean din aceeași perspectivă – Moscova e pusă la colț fără să i se ofere o cale de ieșire – o ieșire diplomatică – și este împinsă spre o posibilă ripostă pur militară  – deși puțin probabil, dar eu aș adăuga faptul că este o greșeală a se pune în aceeași-oală Ucraina cu țările East-Europene din lagărul Comunist al bătrânei Europe.

Aici mi-aș lua libertatea de a fi în dezacord cu profesorul Friedman, aș zice că Rusia nu va face nici un pas spre fostele membre ale Lagărului-Comunist care acum fac parte din alianță – adică membrii NATO, dar asta nu se referă la Ucraina – mai ales că asta a fost înțelegerea-tacită reclamată de Rusia, când s-a dat “the go-ahead” pentru noua Europă după ’89 – și în mod special pentru Ucraina care avea bazele militare rusești la marea neagră – în primul rând Sevastopol și-apoi Crimeea… și arsenalul nuclear inițial… și… și…, dar inclusiv poziția militar-strategică a Ucrainei / a Rusiei, față de Europa lui Churchill și Roosevelt…

Ucraina – să nu uităm, nu este membru NATO – deci “all bets are off” – și în condițiile în care-a evoluat dialogul-surzilor dintre Obama și Putin, nu cred că va fi prea curând indusă “in the Nord-Atlantic Hall of Fame” – unless, two things will happen, or va fi Rusia integrată – fully integrated, în sistemul de securitate UE – implicit NATO, or Estul Ucrainei va fi încorporat zonei de securitate / buffer-zone rusești.

Desigur că înțeleg – ce, când și de ce, construirea unei percepții a unei Moscove militariste poate servi administrația americană în acest conflict  –  unul din motive fiind continuare suportului public la construcție militară americană / NATO în Ucraina, construcție militară care include – the daily upgrade of the military advisors în Ucraina – adică mărirea zilnică a numărului de militari NATO în Ucraina – dar de asemenea înțeleg posibilitatea mai mare ca această strategie să se întoarcă împotrivă – to backfire, gândirii de atotputernic, de stăpân… Believing that pressuring Russia and its people – the Russians, into capitulating – it’s only day dreaming on some non-military minds – no names…  Ce nu înțeleg, sunt cele două standarde cu care administrația Obama tratează rezolvarea conflictelor, unul este o construcție militară la granița Rusiei iar celălalt este ușa deschisă dialogului, încurajarea diplomației în rezolvarea conflictelor, pe care de altfel o aplaud.

Forța trebuie folosită numai împotriva unui “rogue-nation”, dar nu-l arăta cu degetul pe cel pe care-l zgândări…     Iată ce-am găsit azi pe news referitor la asta – la tratarea conflictelor, iată cum Obama este avocatul păcii și înțelegerii prin dialog în ce privește Iranul – dar nu spune aceleași lucruri și despre Rusia…  Și mă repet, pacea de care generația noastră a beneficiat după război se datorează înțelegerii cu Rusia – a acestui parteneriat, pentru crearea ONU – ca mecanism principal de anihilare rapidă a conflictelor între statele lumii.  Dar am impresia că aici cineva a prins prea mult curaj…

Pentru că sunt în Las Vegas, aș face o analogie – numai când jucătorul prinde prea mult curaj, când este entuziasmat de câștigul dobândit prea mult și prea repede, poate prea ușor – entuziasmat de câștig, numai atunci poate pierde tot – numai atunci, își va pune portofelul la bătaie – altfel ar rămâne rațional…

Obama:  “Peace is not the absence of conflict,” Mr Obama said in his speech, quoting President Ronald Reagan. “It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.”

“…Moscow may see no reason not to escalate the conflict on the battlefield if the West is offering only more threats…  …But an even more concrete warning sign is the fact that the NATO Force Integration Units proposed last year are finally set to be established later this month. The presence of these new forward staging units in Eastern Europe, right on Russia’s doorstep, could end up provoking Moscow…”

 

Tagged , , , ,

Coincidenta absoluta

Coincidență… orice asemănare cu realitatea – Quid pro quo, este absolut întâmplătoare și doar o fericită întâmplare.  Nu este adevărat că după șutul în gură primit de Israel – adică înțelegerea cu Iranul, Obama, ca să mai îndulcească apele, îl dă acum la schimb pe Pollard – grațiere cerută de Israel de două ori pe an – sau de zece ori pe an, for that matter, de 30 de ani încoace… 

Sursa: NY Times

WASHINGTON — In July 2014, after Jonathan J. Pollard had served 29 years of a life sentence for spying on behalf of Israel, his hopes for freedom were thwarted when a federal panel denied his request for parole.

But that hearing set in motion an intense scramble by lawyers for Mr. Pollard to ensure a different result a year later, when he would be eligible for parole after serving 30 years. They wrote letters, cited statistics and introduced evidence that their client met two legal standards for parole: that he had behaved well in prison, and that he posed no threat of returning to a life of espionage.

On Tuesday, the effort finally succeeded, as the United States Parole Commission announced that Mr. Pollard, 60, met the legal standards and would be released just before Thanksgiving.

Mr. Pollard, one of the country’s most notorious spies, will walk out of federal prison in Butner, N.C., on Nov. 20. Eliot Lauer, one of the two lawyers who have been working pro bono for the past 15 years to free Mr. Pollard, called his client on Tuesday with the news.

United States officials said that Jonathan J. Pollard, shown in 1998, met legal parole standards. Credit Karl DeBlaker/Associated Press

“Thank God,” Mr. Pollard replied, according to Mr. Lauer. The lawyer added, “Right now, after many, many years of hoping for this day, we are going to sit back and celebrate.”

Mr. Lauer said it was an “absurdity” to think that Mr. Pollard, who was convicted of passing classified materials to his Israeli handlers, would return to spying. He noted that any information Mr. Pollard retained from his time as a Navy intelligence analyst was more than 30 years out of date. He said the parole commission appeared to have accepted that assurance.

In the months before Mr. Pollard’s latest parole hearing several weeks ago, the Justice Department asked intelligence and law enforcement agencies to determine the effect his release would have. “They didn’t articulate how he was going to commit more crimes,” one senior American official said, referring to the agencies.

Mr. Lauer also praised the government for deciding not to oppose Mr. Pollard’s release after years in which the intelligence agencies had vehemently opposed any deal to release him early. Justice Department officials said publicly last week for the first time that they would not oppose parole for Mr. Pollard.

“Clearly, having the government accept our presentation, which involved several months of communication with the government, was clearly a boost in the parole process,” Mr. Lauer said.

Mr. Pollard’s fate has been a source of tension between the United States and Israel for decades. In a statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had spoken to Mr. Pollard’s wife, Esther. He also appeared to take some credit for the parole decision.

“After decades of effort, Jonathan Pollard will finally be released,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Throughout his time in prison, I consistently raised the issue of his release in my meetings and conversations with the leadership of successive U.S. administrations. We are looking forward to his release.”

But Mr. Pollard’s lawyers and American officials insisted Tuesday that the parole decision was not an effort to ease friction between Mr. Netanyahu and President Obama over the agreement that world powers reached this month with Iran to curb its nuclear program. Mr. Netanyahu has said the deal will lead Iran to construct a nuclear weapon.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who testified before Congress on Tuesday on the Iran deal, told reporters after the hearing that there was no connection between Mr. Pollard’s parole and the agreement. “I haven’t even had a conversation about it,” he said.

Longtime observers of the Iran negotiations said it would have been a mistake for Mr. Obama to try to connect Mr. Pollard’s release to the nuclear deal, especially since the fate of four Americans who are being held prisoner in Iran is not addressed by the agreement.

“Any perception that an Israeli spy was released as a result of the Iran deal and not the Americans in Iranian jails would have been a P.R. disaster,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East adviser to Democratic and Republican administrations. “Netanyahu would have had to protest even harder against the agreement to make sure nobody thought he was being bought off.”

In 2014, before the parole commission rejected Mr. Pollard’s request that year, Obama administration officials reportedly discussed the possibility of releasing him as a way to avert a collapse in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Officials said at the time that Mr. Kerry considered the possibility that the early release of Mr. Pollard might coax additional concessions from Mr. Netanyahu in the peace talks. Among the sticking points was whether Israel would release Palestinian prisoners.

The peace talks eventually broke down, leaving the parole commission as Mr. Pollard’s only real hope for freedom.

At the time that Mr. Pollard was sentenced, federal law required that he be reviewed for parole after he had served 30 years of his life sentence, a deadline that falls on Nov. 21. A spokesman for the Bureau of Prisons said Tuesday that Mr. Pollard would be released on Nov. 20, since the 21st is a Saturday.

Mr. Pollard’s lawyers said that if he had not been granted parole, he would have had to serve 15 years more in prison. But an official said that Mr. Pollard would have been eligible for parole every two years.

At the last hearing, which took place at the North Carolina prison on July 7, Mr. Lauer presented his case to the parole commissioners, using what he called statistical evidence to prove that Mr. Pollard was unlikely to break the law in the United States again. He also said that Mr. Pollard had been a model prisoner.

“The absurdity of it,” he said, “to think that Mr. Pollard would do anything that would violate United States law that could bring him back to prison.”

Lawyers for the government also made presentations at the hearing, Mr. Lauer said. He said that “the government’s position was confirmatory of the presentation that we had made.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Pollard expressed a desire to be reunited with his wife, Mr. Lauer said. He added that parole rules may prevent his client from immediately leaving the United States, but that Mr. Pollard was eager to visit Israel when he could.

“His preference is to restart his life,” Mr. Lauer said. “Obviously, he has great affection for Israel, and that is a place he’d like to visit and perhaps to spend time there. It’s too early to predict what his tangible plans will be.”

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Merkel, Obama Meet Amid Ukraine Arms Debate

U.S. President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel meet in Washington on Monday amid the deepening crisis in Ukraine. Merkel is expected to brief the president on the upcoming four-way summit (BBC) in Minsk on Wednesday between French, German, Russian, and Ukrainian counterparts—the latest diplomatic effort for a peace in Ukraine. The meeting between Obama and Merkel comes as U.S. lawmakers are upping pressure on the White House to send lethal weapons to Ukraine; Merkel is staunchly opposed to arming (Reuters) Ukraine and says that only a diplomatic solution will end the conflict. The U.S. and German leaders are also expected to discuss (Deutsche Welle) ISIS, Iran, climate change, and the negotiations (FT) for a trans-Atlantic trade deal.

Analysis

“The only way to solve the Ukraine crisis is diplomatically, not militarily. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, seems to recognize that fact, as she has said Germany will not ship arms to Kiev. Her problem, however, is that she does not know how to bring the crisis to an end,” writes John Mearsheimer for the New York Times.

“There is no doubt that Merkel is under enormous pressure from the German corporate sector because they have enormous investments in Russia. But it would be the same if all of a sudden the US were confronted with a similar situation with a neighbor where you have to cut the economic ties,” Annette Heuser of the Bertelsmann Foundation told Deutsche Welle.

“A new Euro-Atlantic security architecture must be empowered to act beyond traditional ‘military’ matters and engage more broadly on economic, energy-related, and other vital issues. As long as a zero-sum mentality regarding economic integration, trade, and energy persists, distrust will deepen,” write Des Browne, Igor S. Ivanov, and Sam Nunn at Project Syndicate.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,