What you Need to Know About the Greek Elections

Posted on January 26, 2015January 26, 2015 by Denise Simon

It was 2011 that Greece erupted in epic protests over economic conditions and government imposed austerity programs. Since that time, Greece has moved to recover yet that recovery has not proven effective. Chancellor Angela Merkel has threatened Greece with several conditions including removing Greece from the European Union. Over the weekend, Greece completed their election cycle with the an anti-austerity party known as the Syriza party prevailing. It is important to know that Greece is in a tailspin as noted by the party that placed third in the number of votes. A very dangerous new contour is emerging in Greece and it is filtering through Europe, the Golden Dawn Party.

Extreme right party headed for 3rd place in Greek election

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — The specter of Neo-Nazism is no longer haunting Greece. It looks like it is here to stay.

The extreme right, anti-immigrant Golden Dawn party, which has Nazi roots, appears headed for a third-place finish in Sunday’s election. Its showing comes despite the fact that the party’s leader and most of its lawmakers are behind bars, facing charges of participating in a “criminal organization” accused of murders, brutal attacks on migrants and others, extortion and arson.

With more than 90 percent of the voting precincts reporting, Golden Dawn was receiving 6.3 percent of the vote, narrowly leading the centrist Potami (“River”) with 6.04 percent. Both parties exceeded the 3 percent minimum required to gain seats in the 300-member parliament — with each forecast to win 17 seats.

Its share of the vote doesn’t match the 9.39 percent it received in last June’s European Parliament election in which Golden Dawn also finished third. It also trails the 6.92 percent won in the previous national election, in June 2012.

But considering the exposure of a series of crimes allegedly committed by its members, including the Sept. 2013 murder of a leftist rapper, Pavlos Fyssas, the result obtained Sunday may be even more significant. This is no longer merely an angry protest vote, a one-off voters’ tiff with “corrupt politicians.” This is an established vote and a hardened electorate.

“They can no longer plead ignorance. They have dipped their hands in blood,” Communist lawmaker Liana Kanelli commented on Sunday’s result.

Golden Dawn leader Nikos Mihaloliakos and his top lieutenants were not free to campaign ahead of the election, since they were behind bars. They were free to stand as candidates because they have not yet gone to trial. Some of them, including Mihaloliakos, may soon be set free when their 18-month maximum pre-trial detention limit is reached.

In a taped statement Sunday, Mihaloliakos celebrated his party’s performance.

“We achieved this great victory despite the fact that we could not be guaranteed an equal and so-called democratic election as the regime likes to call it, shunned by all (media), facing mudslinging and slander from all sides … having to campaign through a payphone. We have a fresh mandate … everyone fought to keep Golden Dawn away and they lost. Golden Dawn won,” Mihalioliakos said in his taped message.

In a further twist, if the radical left Syriza party, the winner of the election, fails to achieve an outright majority, a prospect still possible early Monday, it might fail to form a government and return the mandate, given to it by the President of the Republic. In that case, the second party takes up the mandate and, if it fails in turn, the third party does. The prospect of a handcuffed Mihaloliakos, escorted by police to meet the Greek president to be asked to try to form a government, sends jitters throughout the political class. And, if it gets the chance, Golden Dawn is certain to exploit the occasion for maximum effect to ridicule the democracy they despise and whose benefits they are trying to exploit. *** Syriza ran on a single issue: reversing Greece’s reforms, which had been the quid pro quo for the assistance Greece has received from the IMF, EC and ECB (known collectively as the “troika”) over the past several years. It is hard to see how Mr. Tsipras could change course dramatically and say that he is planning to honor Greece’s promises to the troika. Attention will now shift to the response of the troika to Syriza’s victory and its policy reversal.

Will the troika respond with a suspension of future assistance and a refusal to roll over existing subsidized debts? Judging from the statements of Mr. Draghi and European political leaders, it appears so. All current indications are that the troika will not accede to a reversal on Greek promises, which will mean an unavoidable Greek government default in a matter of two months. ECB refusal to roll over debt is also likely to produce a Greek banking crisis, as depositors recognize that the withdrawal of ECB assistance to Greece’s banks will mean that Greek banks will be unable to continue to operate at their current debt levels. In anticipation of the withdrawal of troika support, economic theory suggests that depositors should begin to run Greek banks preemptively. How much immediate pressure depositors bring to bear on Greek banks is hard to know.

Mr. Tsipras has said that he wants to stay in the euro zone, but if the troika refuses to continue sending money his way, then he is likely to have no choice but to suspend Greek banks’ convertibility into euros, default on Greek debt payments (more than three-quarters of which are owed to the troika), leave the euro zone to finance his deficits by printing a new domestic currency, and re-denominate bank deposits, loans and contractual wages into that new domestic currency (otherwise, mass insolvencies of borrowers, employers, and banks would result, as euro-denominated obligations will be much harder to fulfill). And if Greek depositors become sufficiently uneasy, Mr. Tsipras may not even have the chance to climb down from his pre-election rhetoric, even in the unlikely event that he comes to his senses; after all, once a run on the banks occurs, Greece could be forced out of the euro within a matter of hours rather than months.

The Arms Race, Launched by Putin’s Threat

Posted on January 26, 2015January 26, 2015 by Denise Simon

It is no secret that Putin has allied Russia with Iran. It is further no secret that Iran is near completion of their nuclear weapons program such that many countries are on Iran’s target list. Coordination and cooperation on nuclear warheads is no secret either but questions need to be asked least of which is who are those that are collaborating and to what end. As Putin finds himself at loggerheads with the West, following his invasion of the Ukraine, he has mentioned Russia’s 5,000 nuclear warheads on at least three occasions recently, and by all accounts, he wasn’t joking, for example, last Thursday night, when Putin was en route to a 50 nations summit, the annual Asia-Europe Meeting in Milan.

“He’s again threatened the West with nuclear weapons,” says John Besemeres, a Russia expert at the ANU. *** So why is this a dangerous topic that needs discussion?

US-Russian rift threatens security of nuclear material

More than two decades of cooperation in guarding weapons-grade stockpiles comes to an end, leaving the world ‘a more dangerous place’

One of the greatest boons brought to the world by the end of the Cold War was the agreement been the US and the countries of the former Soviet Union to cooperate in securing the USSR’s vast nuclear arsenal.

Under the 1991 Cooperative Threat Reduction agreement, better known as the Nunn-Lugar programme (after the two senators who persuaded Congress to pay for it) 900 intercontinental ballistic missiles were destroyed, and over 7600 warheads were deactivated. Some 250 tons of bomb-grade fissile material, scattered across the disintegrating superpower, was locked up and put under guard, so it could not be stolen and sold to the highest bidder. Tens of thousands of former Soviet nuclear weapons scientists and technicians were found jobs and salaries to help reduce the incentives to offer their expertise to rogue states and terrorists.

All in all, a pretty big deal, whose benefits will only be fully appreciated in their absence.

The spirit of cooperation that underpinned the programme has crumbled over recent years. Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia has increasingly bristled at the premise that it was unable to ensure the security of its own arsenal and fretted about Americans using the programme to spy on its nuclear secrets. In 2012, Moscow announced it would not extend Nunn-Lugar, but a replacement US-Russian bilateral nuclear security deal was cobbled together in its place a year later.

That deal, under the framework of the Multilateral Nuclear Environment Programme in Russia (MNEPR), was more limited. The US would not longer take part in the dismantling of weapons but would continue to assist safeguarding stocks of fissile plutonium and uranium.

Now, even that has fallen apart. In December, Congress voted to cut funding, in part because the Ukraine war, although unspent money in the programme could still have been used. A few days later however, as the Boston Globe reported, Russian officials broke the news to their American counterparts in a hotel overlooking Red Square that they were cutting off almost all cooperation.

As a result, no US-funded security work will be done at any Russian nuclear weapons sites nor will there be any joint security upgrades at any Russian facility where substantial amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material are stored.

Speaking by phone from the US, former Senator Sam Nunn, half of the Nunn-Lugar partnership that started the programme, said “the world is a less safe place because of this”.

There has been a race between cooperation and catastrophe, when you look at the possibility of catastrophic acts of terrorism. Cooperation has been running rapidly over the past twenty years, but this is a real setback…The Russians says they are going to spend resources to secure their materials and we have to hope they will. They have the expertise to do it, but they are under heavy economic pressure.

Matthew Bunn, a Harvard University professor and one of the world’s leading experts on the issue, said: “Nuclear security is dramatically better than it was in the 1990’s. The question now is how much those improvements will be sustained. Will there sufficient protection against insiders? Because all thefts up to now have been by insiders, not 20 guys coming in from the outside with guns blazing.”

Of the new US-Russian rift, Bunn said: It makes the world a more dangerous place. It will make it more likely there will be nuclear security incidents in the world’s biggest nuclear stockpile. ***

Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom’s quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran’s atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, “the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring.”

Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, “we will get nuclear weapons”, the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama’s counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:

“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan.”

“What did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn’t charity” Senior Pakistani official

The story of Saudi Arabia’s project – including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges – goes back decades.

In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.

These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.

This summer experts at defence publishers Jane’s reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.

It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan’s defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.

Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.

In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.

The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.

AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.

Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.

They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel’s possession of such weapons.

The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to scepticism about those early claims.

“The Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue”

In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan’s visits to Pakistan’s atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, “Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue.”

Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses – to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.

The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.

In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of “Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation”.

The unnamed Pakistanis opined that “it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical ‘protector’” of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.

By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times “it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom”.

But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.

One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal – probably unwritten – his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically “what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn’t charity.”

Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed “the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred.”

As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight “the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue.”

Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.

Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, “the Nato model”, is more likely.

However ,”I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action”, says Gary Samore.

He adds: “I’ve always thought it was much more likely – the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia”.

This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for ‘Saudi Arabian’ “nukes” to be launched.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic ‘ummah’ or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.

And it is Israeli information – that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles – that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia’s motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.

Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that “unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent.”

Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.

Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic’s nuclear program would be ineffective.

Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.

While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.

These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi’s government.

There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.

Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as “speculative, mischievous and baseless”.

It adds: “Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls.”

The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.

But it also points out that the UN’s “failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council”.

It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action “has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it”.

Iran, the Enemy: Ignored by the White House

Posted on January 22, 2015January 22, 2015 by Denise Simon

There are at least 3 Executive Orders blocking assets of Iranian entities due in part to the category placed on Iran by the U.S. State Department that Iran is a known and proven state sponsor of terror. Barack Obama has lifted sanctions on Iran for the misguided mission and talks to neutralize their nuclear weapons program in violation of the Executive Orders.

The United States began imposing sanctions on Iran in 1983 for the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon. The U.S. placed Iran on the terror list which automatically triggers sanctions. It must be noted however, that there are certain conditions where sanctions do not apply and this includes humanitarian aid.

Iran has also been at the core of the instability in Iraq mostly by financially supporting and providing arms to Iraqi militias going back to as early as 2006. This coordination between Iran and the Iraqi militias were under the Qods force at the command of Qasem Soleimani. Today, this commander is leading the hostilities again in Iraq as the U.S. is battling Islamic State. Why is this all important? The Obama White House and the U.S. Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have been in long talks with Iranian leadership over their nuclear weapons program. To date this has included lifting sanctions, un-freezing of billions of dollars to keep Iran at the negotiations table. Why are we legitimizing Iran at all when they continue to be a state sponsor of terror?

State Department officials as recently as this week admitted they are not working to eliminate the nuclear program but simply to manage it by trusting Iran’s position and pledges. Iran lies and has lied and continues to lie, but the Obama administration dismisses that fact completely. In short Israel being allied with America has been replaced with allying with Iran.

Barack Obama emphasized in this week’s State of the Union address that he will veto any Congressional action to re-apply sanctions to Iran while the talks continue. Speaker Boehner drew first blood the following day by inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session on Congress on February 17. The White House responded immediately calling the invitation a violation of diplomatic processes. The White House went further to state that during Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, the President will NOT meet with the Prime Minister.

The matter gets worse when it comes to the fact that the White House and the State Department continue to run to Iran for the sake of saving nuclear talks which for the last year have failed. No one can explain exactly just why these talks are so tantamount to complete with a win, rather than preventing Iran’s nuclear program completely. If you are still in question as to why the talks must be terminated, it is simply due to lies and never-ending terrorism at the hands of Iran against not only Israel but includes Europe and the United States of America.

Only this week were Israeli tourists attacked while on vacation in Argentina by Iranian attackers. But the most chilling aspect of Iran is their history of terrorism especially when it comes to the bombing of a Jewish Center in 1994 killing 85. A prosecutor all of these subsequent years has been investigating this bombing and submitted a 500 page indictment two years ago. The prosecutor, Alberto Nisman was set to testify a few days ago, but was found dead in his home over the weekend. Nisman had built a case file on Iran’s globally deadly proven evidence and shared all documents with Interpol. Argentina worked diligently to cover up and protect Iran….it became yet another bloody and deadly end.

Nisman’s 500-page-long indictment, handed on Wednesday to an Argentine federal judge, says that several intelligence stations were established to sponsor, foster and execute terrorist attacks in order to export the Islamic revolution. Identical intelligence bases and centers were discovered in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname.

“I legally accuse Iran of infiltrating several South American countries to instal intelligence stations – in other words espionage bases – destined to commit, encourage and sponsor terror attacks like the one that took place against the AMIA,” Nisman was quoted as saying.

According to the dossier, the terrorist network that struck the AMIA center was nearly successful in an attempt in 2007 to blow up the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. The bid was thwarted, however, and the plotters were arrested and later sentenced to life terms in prison. The prosecutor said in his report that these two attacks were part of a wider plan to strike against other targets in Latin America. The report also mentioned the potential development in parts of Latin America by Iran of sleeper cells.

In his report, Nisman also offered new and corroborating evidence implicating the highest authorities of Iran in the AMIA bombing. The indictment says that Mohsen Rabbani, a former Iranian cultural attaché in Buenos Aires, had not only orchestrated the AMIA center bombing in which 85 people died and hundreds were wounded, but also acted as a coordinator of the Iranian infiltration in South America.

According to Nisman, Rabbani spread his activities to Guyana through a disciple, Abdul Kadir, who is a former Guyanese lawmaker and imprisoned for the attempted attack on Kennedy Airport. Kadir was trained and supported by Tehran, the indictment said, and was arrested while boarding a plane for Iran.

Nisman’s office said that the prosecutor had sent copies of his indictment to the judicial authorities of the respective countries. He also requested the International Police Organization (Interpol) to increase precautions and take further measures in order to detain all the suspects in the AMIA case.

Reaction

The head of the Argentine Jewish umbrella group DAIA, Julio Schlosser, who is also a vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, said that Nisman’s filing “reinforces the sentiment that Iran is an unreliable interlocutor that finances and promotes terrorism.” The report provded that the Jewish community had been right in rejecting the memorandum of understanding signed between the governments of Argentina and Iran earlier this year which calls for the establishment of an international ‘truth commission’ tasked with investigation the AMIA bombing. Schlosser said Iran was “not a valid interlocutor because it finances and promotes terrorism.”

Argentine courts have charged eight current and former senior Iranian officials in the bombing, including the current Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi and ex-Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezai. Both are among the candidates in the 14 June presidential election in Iran.

In closing, shame on Barack Obama and John Kerry and those European leaders that are in lock step with the continued quest on the nuclear talks and placing Iran on equal footing globally. There is no case in history where this objective by the White House is aiding and abetting the enemy.

SOTU Ignored NATO’s work Against Russia

Posted on January 21, 2015January 21, 2015 by Denise Simon

BREAKING: Ukraine volunteer battalions admit Kyiv has lost control of Donestk airport, Russia media celebrates. Did Barack Obama mention Ukraine last night? Nah…

Russia has more than doubled assets in Ukraine and it barely gets a mention. Russia has 9,000 troops in Ukraine – President Poroshenko

President Petro Poroshenko: “We have more than 9,000 troops of Russian Federation on my territory… if this is not aggression, what is aggression?”

Russia has more than 9,000 soldiers and 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armoured personnel carriers in eastern Ukraine, President Petro Poroshenko has said.

He urged Russia to withdraw its troops and comply with a ceasefire plan, amid escalating fighting between Ukrainian troops and rebels in the east.

Russia has repeatedly denied claims its soldiers are fighting with the rebels in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Talks on de-escalating the crisis are due to begin in Berlin shortly.

Foreign ministers from Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany will take part in the meeting in the German capital.

More than 4,800 people have been killed and some 1.2 million have fled since rebels took control of parts of Luhansk and Donetsk regions in April.

This followed Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in March.

‘Aggression’

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Poroshenko said the Russian troops in eastern Ukraine were backed by heavy weapons including tanks and artillery systems.

“If this is not aggression, what is aggression?” he asked.

Ukrainian servicemen patrol the streets of Debaltseve, Donetsk, 20 January 2015

Heavy fighting has continued between Ukrainian forces and rebels in the Donetsk region

Two local residents hide in a basement room as rockets reportedly were fired nearby in the area of Debaltseve, Donetsk, 20 January 2014

Two residents hide from rocket fire in a bunker as civilian casualties mount in eastern Ukraine

Pro-Russian rebels move on armoured personnel carriers in eastern Ukraine. Photo: 21 January 2015

Pro-Russian separatists have seized parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions

Mr Poroshenko again called on Russia to comply with the ceasefire agreement reached in September in Minsk, Belarus.

That deal envisages the pullout of heavy weapons by both sides from the line of separation and the exchange of prisoners. It also stipulates that control of the Ukrainian-Russian border, parts of which are currently held by pro-Russian rebels, would be returned to Ukraine’s authorities.

Mr Poroshenko is now cutting short his Davos visit and returning to Kiev in view of the worsening situation in eastern Ukraine.

Earlier on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov admitted that the truce deal was failing because the line of separation was not being respected.

Mr Lavrov said he would be “pushing for an immediate ceasefire” in Berlin as well as the withdrawal of heavy weaponry from that line.

Russia had done its “utmost” to resolve the conflict and “maintain the integrity of Ukraine”, he said, adding that there was no evidence of Russian soldiers or weapons crossing the border.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was no evidence of Russian soldiers crossing the border

Referring to Western sanctions against Russia over its alleged support for the rebels, Mr Lavrov said all attempts to isolate Russia would fail.

Pro-Russian separatists have fought Ukrainian forces for control of the ruined airport at Donetsk and there have been fierce clashes at two checkpoints near the town of Slovyanoserbsk, north-west of Luhansk city.

On Tuesday, Ukraine alleged that “regular military formations” of Russian troops had attacked the checkpoints, although there has been no independent confirmation.

Ukrainian military officials also said two battalion groups, both of around 400 men, had crossed into Ukraine from Russia on Monday – a claim rejected by Moscow as “hallucinations about a Russian invasion”.

Russia has repeatedly rejected accusations by Ukraine and the West that it has been sending its troops into Ukraine and arming the rebels.

However, Moscow acknowledges that Russian “volunteers” are fighting for the separatists.

On Wednesday, five civilians were killed and at least 30 wounded in shelling of several districts of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, the local authority said. The city’s Kyivskiy and Kuibyshivskiy areas were among those worst hit.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said a new law to increase the size of Ukraine’s army to 250,000 personnel had been delivered to parliament on Wednesday. This signifies a rise of some 68,000 people, according to government figures.

‘Victim’

Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesman Yevhen Perebyinis said on Wednesday that Russia had broken the Minsk agreements “the first day after they were signed”.

He said rebels had gained 500 sq km (193 sq miles) in territory since then, he said.

“Now they want the airport, and Russian armed forces are trying to broaden that territory.”

Geoffrey Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine: “This recent re-ignition of the crisis is a consequence of actions taken by the Russian government”

Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, told the BBC the recent escalation in fighting constituted a “turning point” in the conflict.

“This recent reignition of the crisis is a consequence of actions that have been taken by the Russian government – and what’s going to deescalate the crisis is the actions that Russia is going to take to stop the transfer of weapons and heavy equipment and fighters across the border.”

“Ukraine is the victim at this stage,” he added.

Map showing territory held by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine

Sharpton, Sharpton, Sharpton

Posted on January 16, 2015January 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

Keep pulling back the layers and you willd find Reverend Al Sharpton. Just this week, because the new movie Selma was only nominated as a Hollywood Best Picture, Sharpton has called for a full investigation as to why no black actors were nominated for an award. Then there was Ferguson, then there was New York, then even the top people at Sony called for Sharpton’s advise.

Just how is it that Al Sharpton has become the ‘go-to’ guy for everyone? Well Valerie Jarrett crafted and elevated Sharpton’s persona and opened the doors to the White House for him. But there is yet something even more disturbing about Sharpton outside of the usual National Action Network, being and FBI snitch and an IRS deadbeat. Sharpton is the Muslim conduit of Islamic organizations in America to the White House. Now things begin to fall into place.

Back in 2014, it seems that Sharpton was the CAIR man of the year. Next thing you know we will find out that George Soros dumped all kinds of money behind the protests that began in Ferguson…oh wait.

Al Sharpton to Headline Annual CAIR Banquet

MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton has been scheduled to keynote the 20th annual Council on American-Islamic Relations fundraising banquet, scheduled for September 27th in the Washington, D.C., area.

Sharpton has been in the news lately due to his involvement with the continuing protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the death of Michael Brown, a black teenager who was shot and killed by a white police officer. The motives surrounding Brown’s death remain unclear, but some have already attributed it to racism.

Sharpton’s critics have described him as a “race-hustler,” while his supporters have profiled him as a civil rights leader. Rev. Sharpton is President Barack Obama’s “go-to black leader,” according to a 60 Minutes report. Their relationship is so close that “not only does Sharpton travel to see the president, the president travels to see him,” the report said.

CAIR says its mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history–the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Federal prosecutors said of CAIR in an official court filing, “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorist. … The conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

CAIR is seen by many as an arm of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement–an organization that seeks a global Caliphate governed by the barbaric Shariah Koranic laws system. Some point to the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood to highlight the nature of its radicalism: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!” ***

So how did this meteoric rise of Sharpton begin? Well there are key powerbrokers that mentor and build personalities and send them off with a mission, an objective that is cunning arm of progressive and social politics. Enter Valerie Jarrett.

How the Obama-Sharpton Alliance Began

Obama dispatched Valerie Jarrett in 2008 to woo the reverend.

By Jillian Kay MelchiorNear the end of 2007, Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett met with Al Sharpton in New York City and began to cement a relationship that would eventually make the inflammatory activist the president’s “go-to man” on race, according to multiple sources.

The backdrop to the incipient Obama-Sharpton alliance was the then-senator’s 2008 presidential campaign, which still hadn’t locked away the black vote, and the political cross-currents created by two other controversial reverends, Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright.

That tentative relationship has now grown into a full-blown partnership that has vastly increased the once-shunned Sharpton’s influence and prestige and elevated him into a key White House ally at a time of heightened tension over policing and race.

In 2007, media outlets no less prestigious than the New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, and Time questioned whether Obama, with his multiracial and perhaps post-racial narrative, could truly count on securing the black vote. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was pressuring African-American leaders to support her, especially before the primary in heavily black South Carolina. So it was with great annoyance that the Obama campaign read in September that Jesse Jackson had criticized Obama for not speaking out enough about the controversial Jena Six case in Louisiana. (If you’ll recall, racial tensions rose at Jena High School after three nooses appeared swinging from campus branches in August 2006, an apparent threat to a black student who wanted to sit under the tree in an area white students often occupied. Several fights had broken out between white and black students that fall, but when six black students beat up a white student in December, they were charged with attempted second-degree murder, though the victim’s injuries were only superficial. Outrage about the severity of the charges ensued.) Jackson said Obama had not adequately weighed in and was “acting like he’s white,” adding that “if I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena.” And as it turned out, from her days in Chicago, Jarrett already “hated Jesse Jackson,” a source close to Sharpton tells me. “Obama needed a legitimate black voice from the civil-rights community,” the source adds. “Jesse had made disparaging comments about Obama, [so] Jesse got sidelined. Sharpton is the next person in line.” Brian Mathis, a media-shy New York financier who had attended law school with Obama and raised money for his campaign, helped open communications between Jarrett and the reverend, sources close to Sharpton say. Around December 2007, they say, Jarrett met with Sharpton to talk politics in New York; some place the meeting at the exclusive Grand Havana Room cigar club on the 39th floor of a Fifth Avenue skyscraper. Sharpton disputes their account, telling NRO it is “unequivocally untrue” that Jarrett courted him for the Obama campaign. “I had already had a developing dialogue with [Obama], and he even spoke at [National Action Network’s] 2007 convention in April,” Sharpton tells me. He adds: “I’ve known Ms. Jarrett as introduced to me by the president. . . . I don’t remember ever meeting her in the Grand Havana Room. Does she smoke cigars?” Regardless of the venue, sources close to Sharpton say that in late 2007 or early 2008, Jarrett negotiated a simple deal with the reverend: Sharpton would discreetly support Obama for president, working mostly behind the scenes; he wouldn’t publicly criticize Obama, but he also wouldn’t back him in a way that aroused attention. Jarrett sought this careful balance after watching how Sharpton had become a political liability for John Kerry in his 2004 campaign. Several attack ads aired in critical states highlighted the close relationship between Kerry and Sharpton, to devastating effect. Then again, such tacit-support agreements are Sharpton’s “standard M.O.,” says Wayne Barrett, a veteran New York political investigative reporter who has written extensively on the reverend. “Sharpton is the only guy who prospers for not making an endorsement. . . . I don’t think Obama ever wanted Sharpton to endorse him — Obama wanted some distance. . . . [The campaign] didn’t want Sharpton to hurt Obama, but they didn’t want him to be too helpful, either.” Though Sharpton remained publicly neutral, his quiet support for Obama “eventually added to the narrative that a lot of African-American leaders were leaving [Hillary Clinton’s] campaign to go to support Obama,” says Basil Smikle, a former Clinton Senate aide. Sharpton told NRO he could not remember when he decided to support Obama over Clinton, but that he made the decision based on Obama’s “consistent record against the war in Iraq — that was vital to me,” as well as his education policy. The real test of Sharpton’s loyalty came in March 2008, when the content of sermons made by Obama’s longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, drew national attention.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, Wright had preached that “violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. . . . America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” In another sermon, he said: “No, no, no. Not God Bless America. God damn America — that’s in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human.”

Wright’s comments created a big dilemma for Obama. On one hand, a Pew poll found that more than one in three voters thought less of him after hearing about Wright’s sermons, and the campaign knew the controversy could especially harm his standing with white voters. On the other hand, Wright was beloved and respected in many black congregations nationwide, so denouncing him could alienate one of Obama’s crucial constituencies.

Gradually and reluctantly, Obama distanced himself from Wright, finally ending his family’s membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in May. Behind the scenes, the Obama campaign relied on Sharpton to reach out to influential black pastors across the U.S., persuading them not to revolt against Obama for his treatment of Wright, several sources close to Sharpton say.

Sharpton confirms his support of Obama throughout the Wright controversy: “That was at a time where we didn’t know whether we were going to win or lose,” the reverend says. “I encouraged everybody, not just black pastors, that I was going to continue to support [Obama].”

Sharpton’s damage control of the Wright controversy won him trust with Obama, laying the groundwork for a relationship that continues today, sources say. As Brendan Bordelon noted last month, Sharpton has visited the White House at least 61 times since Obama took office.

The logs also show that often these meetings have been with either Valerie Jarrett or her staff, who have continued to help manage the Sharpton-Obama relationship. But in an interview with NRO, Sharpton downplayed both the number of meetings and the importance of his relationship with Jarrett.

The relationship with the president “is not an individual relationship,” Sharpton says, though he adds he’s “had a good working relationship with the Obama administration.” He continues: “I’ve never had a one-on-one with [President Obama] on civil rights. I’ve always had it as part of three or four of us.”

Of the 61 visits in the White House logs, Sharpton says: “If you’re looking at the fact that I’ve gone to receptions, I’ve gone to immigration meetings, I’ve gone to meetings on education, I’ve gone to meetings on civil rights — that’s not exceptional at all over six years. Are you serious? You’re talking less than a meeting a month, and that includes meetings in the Eisenhower Office Building on immigration, education,” he says. Later, he adds: “It’s not just one relationship. You’re taking about an administration. You’re not talking about a personal relationship.”

As for Jarrett, Sharpton says that while she’s a participant in many meetings, “I would not consider her a conduit any more than I would consider Arne Duncan a conduit on education or anyone else with immigration.”

But Jamal Watson, author of a forthcoming biography of Sharpton, tells me, “Valerie Jarrett has become an important ally to Al Sharpton and has become the conduit between the Obama administration and Sharpton and the civil-rights community.”

Long after Obama’s election and reelection, both the president and Sharpton continue to benefit from the relationship, Watson says.

“I think Sharpton helps to legitimize Obama and protect him against critics who claim he’s not black enough,” he explains, “while at the same time, Obama provides credibility to Al Sharpton against the critics who say he is racist and doesn’t have a track record in civil rights.”