Letters Between Sharon and GW Bush

Posted on November 17, 2014November 17, 2014 by Denise Simon

It is ten years later and still there is no peace for Israel. Why you ask? The Palestinians don’t want peace. Money flows in to the Palestinian Authority leadership, making them very wealthy. It is a very pricey cottage industry that has lasted decades. So going back ten years in a letter exchange would be a good lesson to understand how in earnest and full commitment Israel has worked to find peace while the Palestinians, Hamas and even Turkey continue hostilities on all fronts.

Exchange of letters between PM Sharon and President Bush

14 Apr 2004

MFASummaryNew

During their meeting in Washington, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George Bush exchanged letters aimed at achieving a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians in the context of the Roadmap and the prime minister’s Disengagement Plan.

Letter from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to US President George W. Bush

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President,

The vision that you articulated in your 24 June 2002 address constitutes one of the most significant contributions toward ensuring a bright future for the Middle East. Accordingly, the State of Israel has accepted the Roadmap, as adopted by our government. For the first time, a practical and just formula was presented for the achievement of peace, opening a genuine window of opportunity for progress toward a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, involving two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

This formula sets forth the correct sequence and principles for the attainment of peace. Its full implementation represents the sole means to make genuine progress. As you have stated, a Palestinian state will never be created by terror, and Palestinians must engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. Moreover, there must be serious efforts to institute true reform and real democracy and liberty, including new leaders not compromised by terror. We are committed to this formula as the only avenue through which an agreement can be reached. We believe that this formula is the only viable one.

The Palestinian Authority under its current leadership has taken no action to meet its responsibilities under the Roadmap. Terror has not ceased, reform of the Palestinian security services has not been undertaken, and real institutional reforms have not taken place. The State of Israel continues to pay the heavy cost of constant terror. Israel must preserve its capability to protect itself and deter its enemies, and we thus retain our right to defend ourselves against terrorism and to take actions against terrorist organizations.

Having reached the conclusion that, for the time being, there exists no Palestinian partner with whom to advance peacefully toward a settlement and since the current impasse is unhelpful to the achievement of our shared goals, I have decided to initiate a process of gradual disengagement with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians. The Disengagement Plan is designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize our political and economic situation. It will enable us to deploy our forces more effectively until such time that conditions in the Palestinian Authority allow for the full implementation of the Roadmap to resume.

I attach, for your review, the main principles of the Disengagement Plan. This initiative, which we are not undertaking under the roadmap, represents an independent Israeli plan, yet is not inconsistent with the roadmap. According to this plan, the State of Israel intends to relocate military installations and all Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip, as well as other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria.

In this context, we also plan to accelerate construction of the Security Fence, whose completion is essential in order to ensure the security of the citizens of Israel. The fence is a security rather than political barrier, temporary rather than permanent, and therefore will not prejudice any final status issues including final borders. The route of the Fence, as approved by our Government’s decisions, will take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

Upon my return from Washington, I expect to submit this Plan for the approval of the Cabinet and the Knesset, and I firmly believe that it will win such approval.

The Disengagement Plan will create a new and better reality for the State of Israel, enhance its security and economy, and strengthen the fortitude of its people. In this context, I believe it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. Additionally, the Plan will entail a series of measures with the inherent potential to improve the lot of the Palestinian Authority, providing that it demonstrates the wisdom to take advantage of this opportunity. The execution of the Disengagement Plan holds the prospect of stimulating positive changes within the Palestinian Authority that might create the necessary conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations.

We view the achievement of a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians as our central focus and are committed to realizing this objective. Progress toward this goal must be anchored exclusively in the Roadmap and we will oppose any other plan.

In this regard, we are fully aware of the responsibilities facing the State of Israel. These include limitations on the growth of settlements; removal of unauthorized outposts; and steps to increase, to the extent permitted by security needs, freedom of movement for Palestinians not engaged in terrorism. Under separate cover we are sending to you a full description of the steps the State of Israel is taking to meet all its responsibilities.

The government of Israel supports the United States efforts to reform the Palestinian security services to meet their roadmap obligations to fight terror. Israel also supports the American’s efforts, working with the International Community, to promote the reform process, build institutions and improve the economy of the Palestinian Authority and to enhance the welfare of its people, in the hope that a new Palestinian leadership will prove able to fulfill its obligations under the roadmap.

I want to again express my appreciation for your courageous leadership in the war against global terror, your important initiative to revitalize the Middle East as a more fitting home for its people and, primarily, your personal friendship and profound support for the State of Israel.

Sincerely,

Ariel Sharon

Letter from US President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

His Excellency
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Thank you for your letter setting out your disengagement plan.

The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there.

We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.

The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

I know that, as you state in your letter, you are aware that certain responsibilities face the State of Israel. Among these, your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. The United States will join with others in the international community to foster the development of democratic political institutions and new leadership committed to those institutions, the reconstruction of civic institutions, the growth of a free and prosperous economy, and the building of capable security institutions dedicated to maintaining law and order and dismantling terrorist organizations.

A peace settlement negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians would be a great boon not only to those peoples but to the peoples of the entire region. Accordingly, the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel. These actions would be true contributions to building peace in the region.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have described a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace. I commend your efforts and your courageous decision which I support. As a close friend and ally, the United States intends to work closely with you to help make it a success.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

November 24, Deal or no Deal for Iran and Kerry

Posted on November 16, 2014November 16, 2014 by Denise Simon

Tensions and meetings are mounting as the November 24 date approaches. If a deal is reached you can be the 114th session of the U.S. Congress will scrutinize every word as no one has trusted Barack Obama or John Kerry on this process. Allies have been sidelined in the process and betrayal is on the horizon if a deal is struck.

Meanwhile Iran demands that the West comply with their demands and such demands have not been spelled out or forthcoming. If no deal is reached the consequences are just as bad if not worse. This is a time to look cautiously at allies, territory, weapons, dates and sanctions.

Meanwhile there is Oman, a quiet and settled country that has been an interlocutor in the process.

US State Department spokeswoman Psaki said that the US remained “very focused” on making progress in talks with Iran and on signing an agreement by the November 24 deadline.

MOSCOW, November 10 (Sputnik) – The talks in Oman on Iran’s controversial nuclear program were “tough, direct and serious,” US Department of State spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday.

The talks involved EU diplomat Catherine Ashton, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Psaki said her country remained “very focused” on making progress in talks with the Islamic Republic and on signing the agreement by the November 24 deadline.

“There is still time to do so,” she told reporters.

The meeting between the three foreign policy chiefs wrapped up the second day of talks in the run-up to broader negotiations between Iran, EU’s Ashton and P5+1, which includes Russia, the United States, Britain, France, China, and Germany.

The trilateral meeting was called to address major differences that have been hindering a comprehensive agreement. On Sunday, the three envoys discussed Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the possibility of easing Western sanctions against Tehran.

The talks between Iran and the group of six powers will continue on Tuesday in the city of Muscat, Oman.

The West has accused Iran of attempting to build nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, while Tehran argues that its nuclear ambition is to meet the country’s growing energy needs and achieve other peaceful goals.

Last January the United States agreed to provide limited sanctions relief if Iran froze its nuclear program. Since then, Iran has halted production and opened the door to international inspectors.

In November 2013, during talks held in Geneva, the P5+1 group agreed to reach a deal with the Tehran delegation, guaranteeing the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program by July 2014. The deadline was later extended to November 24, 2014.

So what is in Oman’s future? One of my favorite analysts has published a soft alarm bell.

Could Oman be the Next Crisis?

by Michael Rubin Commentary November 14, 2014

http://www.michaelrubin.org/15656/oman-crisis

In 1970, with British help and support, Qaboos bin Sa’id overthrew his father and took the reins of powers in the Sultanate of Oman. Sultan Qaboos was an enlightened monarch, and firmly guided the xenophobic and isolationist state back into the modern world. Oman has since been a model of neutrality and tolerance, often acting as a bridge between regional adversaries (it is no coincidence that Oman served as the initial go-between for U.S.-Iran talks). Nevertheless, when push came to shove, Oman has done what is needed to combat terrorism. U.S. aircraft based in Oman launched some of the initial airstrikes against the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom.

Oman is also strategically important. For all Western policymakers fret about Iranian activities in the Strait of Hormuz, they often forget that Oman occupies one side of the important waterway. Should Iran gain a toehold on both sides of the Strait, the calculus of Persian Gulf security would change.

Alas, the status quo cannot last forever. Sultan Qaboos is aging. A “confirmed bachelor,” Qaboos has produced no offspring. Succession looms. And, perhaps never closer than now. ForeignPolicy.com today has an interesting piece speculating that Qaboos, who will turn 74 next week, may be on his deathbed. The Sultan has in recent weeks sought to dispel the rumors that he suffers from terminal colon cancer, but his frail appearance and his subsequent cancellation of his forthcoming national day appearance have added fuel to the fire.

In theory, when Qaboos dies, a new leader is supposed to be chosen by consensus among the leading factions of the royal elite. But if there is no consensus, then a letter that Qaboos will leave should help determine that successor. The problem is that surrounding countries have everything to gain and nothing to lose by disputing the authenticity of such a letter or by putting forward fraudulent copies favoring their own proxy. While it’s doubtful that Oman will make as radical a political shift as it did as a result of the last succession, the failure of the White House to adopt a proactive strategy toward the region does put its future in doubt. While Washington shouldn’t necessarily muck about in Omani royal politics, it is a vital interest to protect the integrity of the process and prevent Iran from doing so.

There are a few nightmare scenarios. One is that a pro-Iranian ruler will become Oman’s next leader. Another is an outbreak of fighting. This is farfetched, of course. Just as Saudi troops invaded Bahrain to prevent a Shi’ite triumph over the Khalifa ruling family, it would not sit idly while another friendly monarchy fell to what it considers hostile forces. Then again, Oman is neither Sunni nor Shi’ite, and so long as the monarchy isn’t threatened—and it won’t be—then Saudi Arabia might choose more subtle ways to interfere.

Herein lays another danger. Should both Iran and Saudi Arabia begin supporting proxy figures or movements, it might not be long before this undercut Omani stability in other ways. After all, Oman has been a pillar of stability for decades, but then again so was Syria; at least since Hafez al-Assad staged his 1970 coup. Oman could also face the resurgence of regional tension; it wasn’t too long ago in the scheme of things that it fought an insurgency against communist rebels in Dhofar.

Let us hope that Qaboos overcomes his current health crisis but, realistically, septuagenarian leaders do not last forever. The United States should hope for the best in Oman, but it’s long past time when U.S. officials should plan for the worst. Alas, planning for the worst case is something to which too often American strategists across administrations seem adverse. We should not be. Oman is too important to lose.

Testimony Confirms Obamacare Lies

Posted on November 10, 2014November 10, 2014 by Denise Simon

As Jonathan Gruber will tell you, the MIT economist helped to write ObamaCare and remains one of its fiercest defenders. So it’s no surprise that on Friday the Web was full of chatter that Mr. Gruber had at least twice made public assertions that support the latest legal challenge to the health law.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week in Halbig v. Burwell that the plain language of ObamaCare says that subsidies for health insurance can only be delivered through state, not federal, exchanges. The Administration claims this ignores the clear intent of the law, but someone didn’t tell Mr. Gruber.

Now this case takes us to present day Congressional testimony where the esteemed MIT professor tells us they were able to sell Obamacare because of lack of transparency and mostly because America is stupid. Wait until the Supreme Court receives this testimony….or not.

We are stupid, we have been played and punked by the Obama administration on Obamacare and is thousands of cases it was a deadly position to be in.

Obamacare Architect: “Lack of Transparency” Helped Law Pass

The esteemed college professor who served as one of Obamacare’s key architects has admitted that a “lack of transparency” helped the administration pass the disastrous healthcare law, which is facing a number of legal challenges.

It’s a scandalous confession for an administration that has repeatedly vowed to be the most transparent in history. The information comes straight from Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during the Affordable Care Act’s (Obamacare) design. Gruber was recorded during a panel and the video recently surfaced and has been making the rounds on the internet.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber says. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass…”

Gruber also makes clear that the individual mandate, upheld by the Supreme Court only because it’s considered a tax, was not actually a tax in the original law because it never would have passed. The Obamacare designer is essentially saying that the administration intentionally deceived the public to push its hostile takeover of the nation’s healthcare system. “Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not,” Gruber says in the recorded presentation.

The Gruber tape marks the latest of many scandals involving Obamacare. Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in exposing the healthcare law’s multiple boondoggles and has sued the administration on behalf of a South Florida orthodontist over the unlawful, one-year delay of the employer mandate. The mandate, which subjects certain large employers to tax penalties if they don’t offer “affordable, minimum essential” health insurance coverage to their employees, was postponed without the approval of Congress. It marked one of more than a dozen times that the administration unilaterally rewrote the healthcare law by executive fiat.

JW also sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain records about controversial Obamacare navigators and their qualifications and background checks. Earlier this year JW obtained records from HHS illustrating the scope of the Obamacare rollout disaster, including the fact that on its first full day of operation the government site—Healthcare.gov—received only one enrollment. On the second day of Healthcare.gov operation, 48% of registrations failed, according to the records obtained by JW as a result of a lawsuit.

Asia Pivot, Made in China

Posted on November 10, 2014November 10, 2014 by Denise Simon

The last visit Barack Obama made to China did not go well such that relations have soured on the diplomatic scale. The visit to China this week consumed huge resources to lay the groundwork in advance of the trip for the 2014 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. Susan Rice spent the last weeks challenging the fact that China was so slighted during the 2009 extended trip that China has refused since to extend visas and temporary housing permits of Americans in China on business and with media.

First out of the gate, Obama delivered a most generous gift to China and that was to open a new front on visas for Chinese, from one year renewals to 5-10 years effective immediately claiming it will add to American jobs as it is touted that China infuses $80 billion yearly into the U.S economy. $80 billion is hardly a great sum or epic deal when in fact the Chinese hacking world costs the U.S. corporate industry billions and is a top concern of James Comey, Director of the FBI.

It should also be noted that Russia has been quite effective at cultivating a sustained relationship with China while China’s own economy has almost zero growth and their debt ratio to revenue ratio is stagnant cancelling out each other.

China has presented many issues that must be addressed prior to all the enhanced trade talks and global policy cooperation. China has been most aggressive towards yet other U.S. allies in Asia causing outrage and conflict in the S. China sea with regard to island and territory disputes. There is also censorship within the internet industry and continued human rights issues, both of which the White House and the State Department overlook for the sake of placing a happy face on Obama’s foreign policy strategy.

China does have issues when it comes to its own infrastructure including transportation, medical advancements, factories, power and use of energy sources like oil and gas. Each of those conditions facing China are being addressed in partnership with Russia.

Obama will also use his time in China to push for more attention and resources when it comes to Climate Change, an exclusively assigned mission given to John Podesta and investment treaties.

A topic that will likely not receive any time and attention is the Chinese relationship with North Korea and the associated human rights violations on the heels to two Americans being released from a DPRK prison allegedly managed by ODNI Director James Clapper this past weekend.

In summary, what is really behind Obama’s policy platform in China? Well with the beating he took in the midterms, his policy team has decided to focus on the economy. Obama wants Chinese money and he offered a visa pass to get their money. Going visa free in exchange for money is the common ‘go-to’ agenda of the Obama Administration. Question is, exactly who DOES benefit from the $80 billion of Chinese investment where winners and losers are predetermined by the White House.

Rich Chinese overwhelm U.S. visa program

Any foreigner willing to commit at least $500,000 and create 10 jobs in America can apply for an investor immigrant visa — also known as an EB-5.

The demand from mainland Chinese eager to move abroad has already led the U.S. government to warn the program could hit a wall as early as this summer.

Chinese nationals account for more than 80% of visas issued, compared to just 13% a decade ago, according to government data compiled by CNNMoney. That translates to nearly 6,900 visas for Chinese nationals last year, a massive bump up from 2004, when only 16 visas were granted to Chinese.

“The program has literally taken off to the point [that] in China, the minute anybody hears I’m an immigration lawyer, the first thing they say is, ‘Can we get an EB-5 visa?’ ” said Bernard Wolfsdorf, founder of the Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group.

“There is a panic being created in China about the demand [getting] so big that there is going to be a visa waiting line,” he said.

Gorbachev Warning Cold War, Useful Idiots

Posted on November 9, 2014November 9, 2014 by Denise Simon

The phrase ‘useful idiots’, supposedly Lenin’s, refers to Westerners duped into saying good things about bad regimes.

Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin used the term “polyezniy idiot” or “useful idiot” to describe sympathizers in the West who blindly supported Communist leaders.

The adulation of left-wing dictators and strongmen by Western intellectuals, journalists, and celebrities didn’t begin with Stalin (in 1921 Duranty had hailed Lenin for his “cool, far-sighted, reasoned sense of realities”), and it certainly didn’t end with him. Mona Charen chronicled the phenomenon in her superb 2003 book “Useful Idiots,” which recalls example after jaw-dropping example of American liberals defending, flattering, and excusing the crimes of one Communist ruler and regime after another. Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, the Khmer Rouge, Leonid Brezhnev, Kim Il Sung, the Sandinistas: Over and over the pattern was repeated, from the dawn of the Bolshevik Revolution to the collapse of the Iron Curtain — and beyond.

And so now we have a former Russia leader Gorbachev sounding the clarion call to the West, especially Europe that not only are you idiots but you are ‘irrelevant as a global power’, The matter did not begin with Lenin and Stalin and will not end with Putin until it goes far beyond Ukraine and into the Baltics, of which the KGB ‘useful idiot’ program for recruiting and indoctrination is already underway.

By Bettina Borgfeld

BERLIN (Reuters) – Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warned in a speech in Berlin on Saturday that East-West tensions over the Ukraine crisis were threatening to push the world into a new Cold War, 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Gorbachev, who is credited with forging a rapprochement with the West that led to the demise of communist regimes across Eastern Europe, accused the West, and the United States in particular, of not fulfilling their promises after 1989.

“The world is on the brink of a new Cold War. Some say that it has already begun,” said Gorbachev, who is feted in Germany for his pivotal role in helping create the conditions for the Berlin Wall’s peaceful opening on Nov. 9, 1989, heralding the end of the Cold War.

“And yet, while the situation is dramatic, we do not see the main international body, the U.N. Security Council, playing any role or taking any concrete action.”

The conflict in eastern Ukraine has killed more than 4,000 people since the start of an uprising by pro-Russian separatists in mid-April.

Russia blames the crisis on Kiev and the West, but NATO says it has overwhelming evidence that Russia has aided the rebels militarily in the conflict.

Gorbachev, 83, also criticized Europe and said it was in danger of becoming irrelevant as a global power.

“Instead of becoming a leader of change in a global world, Europe has turned into an arena of political upheaval, of competition for spheres of influence and finally of military conflict,” he said.

“The consequence inevitably is Europe weakening at a time when other centers of power and influence are gaining momentum. If this continues, Europe will lose a strong voice in global affairs and gradually become irrelevant.”

Speaking at an event at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, Gorbachev said the West had exploited Russia’s weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“Euphoria and triumphalism went to the heads of Western leaders,” he said. “Taking advantage of Russia’s weakening and the lack of a counterweight, they claimed monopoly leadership and domination of the world, refusing to heed words of caution from many of those present here,” he said.

Gorbachev said the West had made mistakes that upset Russia with the enlargement of NATO, with its actions in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria and with plans for a missile defense system.

“To put it metaphorically, a blister has now turned into a bloody, festering wound,” he said. “And who is suffering the most from what’s happening? I think the answer is more than clear: It is Europe.”

(Writing by Erik Kirschbaum; Editing by Rosalind Russell)

By Nicolas Miletitch

Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) – Armoured convoys headed to bolster rebel positions in east Ukraine Sunday as shelling rocked separatist stronghold Donetsk and fears mounted of a return to full-scale fighting.

Shelling rumbled on throughout the afternoon on the edge of Donetsk, where government forces regularly exchange heavy fire with insurgent fighters, but was less intense than overnight when mortar fire was heard close to the centre for around two hours, an AFP journalist reported.

It was among the fiercest combat in the city since the September 5 signing of a frequently-violated ceasefire that halted all-out confrontations across most of the conflict zone but failed to end constant bombardments at strategic hotspots.

An AFP crew saw a convoy of 20 military vehicles and 14 howitzer cannons without number plates or markings driving through the rebel town of Makiivka in the direction of the nearby frontline around Donetsk.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) voiced concern Saturday after its monitors witnessed unmarked columns of tanks and troop carriers moving through east Ukraine in territory held by pro-Russia separatists.

The sightings of armoured columns came after Ukraine’s military said Friday a large convoy of tanks and other heavy weapons entered the country from Russia across a section of border that has fallen under the control of rebel fighters.

Russia denies being involved in the fighting in the east.

However, it openly gives the rebels political and humanitarian backing and it is not clear how the insurgents could themselves have access to so much sophisticated and well-maintained weaponry.

In March, Russian soldiers without identification markings took over the southern Ukrainian region of Crimea. Moscow annexed the peninsula shortly after.

The OSCE reports from the east came as fears mounted of a total breakdown in the two-month truce, with the war having already killed some 4,000 people, according to UN figures.

Ukraine’s military said Sunday that three servicemen were killed and thirteen injured as shelling hit government positions around the region.

Rebel leader Alexander Zakharchenko risked heavy fire Sunday morning as he toured the insurgents’ forward positions around the ruins of the Donetsk airport, where Ukrainian troops are battling fiercely to maintain a toe-hold, Russian outlet LifeNews reported.

“They continue to bombard our aiport, nothing is changing,” Zakharchenko was filmed as saying.

– Tanks, cannons, tankers –

Unidentified military columns have been seen increasingly by foreign journalists in the east in recent days, and Ukraine’s military on Sunday repeated allegations that Russia is covertly deploying troops to bolster rebels ahead of a fresh offensive.

The OSCE’s statement gives weight to concerns that the stuttering peace process could soon be ditched definitively.

“More than 40 trucks and tankers” were seen driving on a highway on the eastern outskirts of Makiivka, said the OSCE representatives, who are in Ukraine monitoring the ceasefire.

“Of these, 19 were large trucks –- Kamaz type, covered, and without markings or number plates –- each towing a 122mm howitzer and containing personnel in dark green uniforms without insignia. Fifteen were Kraz troop carriers,” the report said.

Separately, the OSCE monitors said they had seen “a convoy of nine tanks moving west, also unmarked” just southwest of Donetsk.

The OSCE said all these forces were on territory controlled by the separatists’ self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic.

The Swiss foreign minister and OSCE chairperson-in-office, Didier Burkhalter, said he was “very concerned about a resurgence of violence in the eastern regions of Ukraine”, and urged all sides to act responsibly.

– New Cold War? –

The conflict has sent relations between Western backers of Ukraine and Russia to their lowest level in decades.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is gearing up for a fraught week of diplomacy with visits to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing and Group of 20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, where he looks likely to face a hostile reception from Western leaders.

The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, said the world “is on the brink of a new Cold War” sparked by Ukraine.

“Some are even saying that it has already begun,” Gorbachev said at an event Saturday marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Russia’s economy is suffering from European Union and US sanctions imposed in response to Moscow’s support for the separatists.

With Russia welcoming last week’s rebel elections, which were billed as boosting the separatists’ claim to independence, the sanctions look set to remain in place — and possibly be reinforced.