Category Archives: Middle East

Why the Taliban Attack is a Big Deal

Posted on by

 

CNN in part: Earlier Monday, the insurgents seized the main roundabout in the city and made it to the prison, where they freed more than 500 inmates, who flooded the streets of Kunduz, Hussaini told CNN.

One of the released inmates told CNN, “We were hearing gunshots throughout the day, but it was 4:00 p.m. when the Kunduz prison guards left the compound. Then, the inmates broke all the doors and fences and started running towards the main gate.”

“As soon as we opened the main gate, we saw a group of armed Taliban outside the gate. They told us that we were free and could go home. … We all headed towards our homes,” he said.

The Taliban also claimed to have seized a 200-bed hospital — posting photos to social media that they claimed proved their control of the facility.

Sediqqi said at least four civilians had died and 50 others were wounded as Taliban forces were firing heavy weapons indiscriminately throughout the city.

In addition, 25 Taliban fighters were killed, Sediqqi said, and two Afghan policemen died and four others were wounded.

Will Barack Obama evaluate the rules of engagement in Afghanistan?

Politico: Barack Obama may not call what American troops will do in Afghanistan next year “combat,” but he has quietly laid the groundwork for continuing battle against the Taliban.  Obama has authorized the military to provide air support to Afghan troops next year after the U.S. has completed the transition to its “advise- and-assist” mission, the White House says.

At the same time, administration officials say they aren’t increasing the number of troops, slowing the drawdown or changing their mission, but are allowing commanders in Afghanistan to have the authority to order attacks if necessary.

That was clear in guidance Obama issued to preserve broad discretion for American commanders, who asked for a robust ability to protect U.S. troops and support the Afghan National Security Forces even though the Afghans bear main responsibility for the war against the Taliban.  Further details.

The Taliban taking over Kunduz is a big Deal

WSJ: On Monday, Taliban fighters seized Kunduz, city of about 300,000 people in the country’s north. Government forces have reportedly fled to the outskirts of town, and Taliban flags have been seen around the city.

We should be very concerned about the fall of Kunduz for four reasons:

1.) A Taliban takeover of a large urban area is no longer an abstraction.

Since losing power 14 years ago, the Taliban’s territorial triumphs in Afghanistan have been limited to taking control of pockets of rural and remote areas. This can be attributed to the international combat mission, improvements in Afghan war-fighting capacities, and an increasingly fractured and vulnerable insurgency. With the Kunduz seizure, however, the Taliban has pulled off what it could not do in nearly the last decade and a half, and what arguably no militant group other than ISIS has been able to achieve over the same period.

2.)  The Taliban now boasts a bonafide bastion far from its traditional stronghold.

The Taliban’s main areas of strength have been eastern and southern Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border. It is in these regions where much of the international coalition’s combat missions were centered. In recent years, however, the Taliban and its allies have sought to develop new bases and footholds to the north and northeast. Ominously, nearly two years ago the journalist and Taliban expert Ahmed Rashid warned that militants were trying to secure Afghanistan’s entire northeastern corridor to establish a base for operations against the government in Kabul.

3.)Afghan forces are in big trouble.

The fall of Kunduz did not come out of nowhere. Taliban forces had been chipping away at the city’s security for weeks. Afghan government forces, however, were unable or unwilling to pre-empt this threat. For all the improvements that Afghan troops have made in recent years, the country’s fighting forces remain a major work in progress. And when your country faces an insurgency capable of seizing a big city, “work in progress” is not good enough—and is, in fact, quite dangerous.

4.)The government is in a very tough spot.

It’s hard to be optimistic that Afghanistan’s national unity government will mount a robust and rapid response to the Kunduz seizure. After all, this administration—which recently marked its first anniversary in power—still lacks a full cabinet, including a defense minister. Kabul’s capacity to confront an emboldened insurgency is questionable given its inability to achieve even the most basic tasks of governance.

Fortunately, there may be a silver lining to all this: a potential blow to ISIS. The terror group has gradually made inroads in Afghanistan, winning the allegiances of disaffected Taliban leaders. However, the Kunduz takeover underscores that the Taliban remains the biggest militant threat in Afghanistan, and that it can pull off, albeit on a smaller scale, the type of dramatic acts that ISIS can pull off in Iraq and Syria. This could boost Taliban recruitment efforts in Afghanistan, and dampen those of ISIS.

Either way, today’s news from Kunduz is a very big deal, and deserves a fair share of airtime.

 

 

Hillary, State of State and the Foundation

Posted on by

One has to wonder how retired Admiral Kirby, the State Department spokesperson is gonna spin all the mess noted below.

Hillary Clinton last month signed a certification of all emails being turned over and back to the State Department. Now there is a signature and possible perjury condition.

Are the phone calls flying to the White House demanding ‘executive privilege’ for Hillary and her team?

In part from the DailyCaller and good research team: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official diplomatic business created many national security problems, but they may pale by comparison with the wreckage she left behind in her department’s main digital information security office.

Harold W. Geisel, the State Department’s acting Inspector General, issued eight scathing audits and investigation reports during Clinton’s tenure, repeatedly warning about worsening problems and growing security weaknesses within the Bureau of Information Resource Management, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

Geisel’s critical comments about the deficiencies throughout IRM carry additional weight since he was not considered an “independent” IG.  Watchdog groups noted Geisel had served as a U.S. Ambassador for Hillary’s husband, President Clinton, and had never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In fact, President Obama did not nominate an IG to the State Department during Clinton’s entire term. It was only in September 2013 that the Senate finally confirmed Geisel’s successor, Steve Linick, who currently occupies the the post.

After Clinton left the State Department in 2013, Linick quickly undertook remedial action to save the IRM. Barely two months after his Senate confirmation, he issued a “management alert” to State Department leadership, warning that IRM’s languishing security deficiencies since 2010 were still there.

“The department has yet to report externally on or correct many of the existing significant deficiencies, thereby leading to continuing undue risk in the management of information,” Linick said.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not respond Sunday to a request for comment.

Clinton put Bryan Pagliano, her 2008 presidential campaign IT director, in the IRM in early 2009 as a “strategic advisor” who reported to the department’s deputy chief information officer. Pagliano had no prior national security experience or a national security clearance.

The seriousness of Clinton’s failure was summarized in a 2012 audit that warned, “the weakened security controls could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems” used by U.S. officials around the world.

Geisel’s July 2013 inspection report issued after Clinton’s departure was so damning that the IRM became the butt of caustic comments throughout the IT world.

Network World, an IT review site, for example, headlined one of its articles on the issue with “FAIL: Your Tax Dollars at Play: the US State Department’s Bureau of Information of Resource Mis-Management.” The article charged that the IRM had become “a total joke.”

Another news outlet told its readers that the editors would “like to be able to tell you what the IRM does, but a new report from the Office of Inspector General concludes that it doesn’t really do anything.”

IRM “is evidently an aimless, over-funded LAN party with no real boss or reason to exist,” concluded reporter Jordan Brochette when the 2013 IG report was released.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, reviewed the IG reports for DCNF and concluded that “State’s IT security record is littered with questionable management, insecure systems, poor contract oversight, and inadequate training. The State IG’s reviews show a pattern of significant deficiencies and few, if any, corrections.”

Geisel issued his first audit of IRM in November 2009, eight months into Clinton’s term. It also was the first audit issued after Pagliano arrived at the bureau. Geisel identified many serious IT security deficiencies that year. Unfortunately, most of the problems would continue to be uncorrected throughout Clinton’s term.

One troubling observation early in Clinton’s secretaryship was that the IG found the State Department and even embassy chiefs of mission suffering from a lack of IT security training, including the lack of “security awareness training.”

The lack of IT security awareness by top State Department officials may partly explain why Clinton and her top aides saw no problems with the use of a personal email server. (RELATED: Fmr. CIA Head: Hillary’s Email Server Was Compromised By Foreign Intel Services)

Geisel also warned in late 2009 that at the IRM, he found “there were no Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for managing IT-related security weaknesses.”

In an audit about IRM in February 2010, the IG reviewed how well IRM officials were implementing Secretary Rice’s 2007 modernization and consolidation progam.

It was in this 2010 audit that the first hints emerged of poor management at the IRM. Geisel concluded the bureau’s leadership failed to satisfy vulnerable IRM field staff deployed at embassies and consulates.  He called them IRM’s “customers.”

The IG “found a significant level of customer dissatisfaction among bureaus about the quality and timeliness of IT services after consolidation.”

In November 2010 Geisel issued yet another warning about shortcomings within IRM. In this report, the IG repeated that IRM “needed to make significant improvements” to address “security weaknesses,”

Once again, he emphasized that IRM had failed in providing mandatory “security awareness training” to all top security personnel. He also noted a failure to require all contractors to undergo mandatory security authorization.

“The department did not identify all employees who had significant security responsibilities and provide specialized training,” the IG charged.

The IG discovered other worrisome problems in 2010. It found officials failed to provide corrective patches for security problems in a third of the cases examined by his office. The IG also pointed to more than 1,000 “guest” IT accounts within the department’s IT systems that could provide entry paths for hackers.

Geisel further reported that the IRM had 8,000 unused email accounts and that department officials never changed the passwords on 600 active email embassy and consulate accounts.

There were also “24 of 25 Windows systems tested [that] were not compliant with the security configuration guidance.”

The damning IG reports continued in July 2011 when Geisel detailed serious problems afflicting a new IRM program called eDiplomacy that Clinton unveiled earlier that year.

Geisel was blunt: “eDiplomacy lacks a clear, agreed-upon mission statement that defines key goals and objectives. With the absence of performance measurement process, management has few means to evaluate, control, budget, and measure the success of its projects.”

Geisel painted an alarmingly negative assessment in a November 2011 audit on the IRM’s overall information security program. Specific details were redacted but the report warned for the first time of “additional security breaches,” saying “we identified weaknesses that significantly impact the information security program controls. If these control weaknesses are exploited, the department could be exposed to additional security breaches. Collectively, these control weaknesses represent a significant deficiency.”

If the breaches weren’t quickly fixed, the consequences would be harmful to “the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems.” Complete summary here.

*** Then there is the Clinton Foundation and the proven interaction of the State Department with the Clinton Charity:

Clinton Aide Shared Classified Information With Foundation, Email Shows

Cheryl Mills sent information marked ‘confidential’ to Clinton Foundation in 2012

FreeBeacon: A member of Hillary Clinton’s staff at the Department of State emailed classified information about the government in Congo to a staffer at the Clinton Foundation in 2012, according to a copy of the correspondence obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, sent the email to the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai, on July 12, 2012.

The message, which was originally obtained by the group Citizens United through a public records request, is partially redacted because it includes “foreign government information” that has been classified as “Confidential” by the State Department.

Although the information was not marked classified by the State Department until this past summer, intelligence sources tell the Free Beacon that it would have been classified at the time Mills sent it because “foreign government information” is considered classified from inception.

The message could add to concerns from congressional and FBI investigators about whether former Secretary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while at the State Department.

The email, which discussed the relationship between the governments in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, was originally drafted by Johnnie Carson, the State Department’s assistant secretary for African affairs, who sent it to Mills’ State Department email address.

Mills later forwarded the full message to Desai along with “talking points for Presient [sic] Clinton” shortly before Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the region.

About half of the forwarded message was redacted due to its classified nature before the State Department released it to Citizens United last month. Although it is not clear what the redacted section includes, the State Department said in a court motion filed last week that it “concerns both foreign government information and critical aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including U.S. foreign activities carried out by officials of the U.S. Government.”

The State Department added that the “disclosure of this information has the potential to damage and inject friction into our bilateral relationship with African countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security.”

The Clinton Foundation and the State Department did not respond to request for comment about the email, or say whether Desai—a non-government employee who has worked at the foundation since 2007—would have been authorized to view “Confidential” information.

Mills currently sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation. She previously served on the board until a month after she joined the State Department in 2009.

An attorney for Mills said that she never knowingly transmitted classified information, and would presume that any information sent to her unclassified State Department email address—as opposed to through the department’s secure email system—was unclassified.

“When a subject matter sent the information on the unclassified system, [Mills] presumed it was unclassified,” said the attorney. ”She never knowingly transmitted classified information.”

Mills’ spokesperson also disputed the notion that the information would have been classified when it was sent. The attorney said that some information is not deemed classified until it is transmitted outside of the State Department.

“Information that is considered unclassified when discussed inside the State Department can later be deemed classified when it is being released outside of the Department,” said the attorney.

Intelligence experts have told the Free Beacon and other media outlets that “foreign government information” is one of the few categories of information that is automatically presumed classified from the time the U.S. government receives it, because it is so diplomatically sensitive.

Foreign government information is “born classified,” J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office, told Reuters in August.

The controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email server while at the State Department has been dogging her presidential bid since it was first revealed by the New York Times earlier this spring.

The Democratic frontrunner has turned over many of her emails in response to a State Department request and congressional inquiries. However, she has said that any emails that were deemed “personal” were deleted from her server.

The FBI is currently attempting to recover the deleted emails as part of an investigation into her server, according to reports.

Clinton declined to say whether the FBI investigation could uncover additional damaging revelations, during an interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press on Sunday.

“All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process [of deleting personal emails], I did not participate,” said Clinton.

Clinton is scheduled to testify before Congress on the email issue in October.

Citizens United president David Bossie said the latest news reveals the ways in which the Clintons’s various interests intersect.

“The tangled web that is Clinton, Inc.—the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo—is coming more and more into focus every day. Classified information moving from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation is extremely problematic—we’ll see if there’s a pattern here,” Bossie said.

 

 

 

Obama At UN Ignored Israel and Palestine

Posted on by

There was an official Palestinian flag raising at the United Nations this year. Last March, Pope Francis announced the Vatican’s full recognition of Palestine as a state. So the work continues to lobby all factions for a Palestinian State, but, somehow, Barack Obama missed the memo, or did he?

So, while some speechwriter did an eloquent job of writing Obama’s opening speech, it really spoke to climate change, refugees, challenging Russia and China. But when it came to another major elephant in the Middle East, Obama ignored mentioning Israel and the conflict with Palestine, when Mahmoud Abbas will be challenging the matter in his speech. In fact, Abbas is about to retire and is likely out of options for the near future.

It is almost impossible to hear what is not said, unless you are really listening.

The NYT’s has the text of Barack Obama’s remarks. Meanwhile, it appears the topic of Palestine and Israel was perhaps coordinated with Sheik Tamin bin Hamad al Thani of Qatar.  The White House has used Qatar as the single ‘go-to’ source for working deals in the Middle East.

It was a large agenda item a few years ago for the White House, where Hillary Clinton passed the Palestinian peace talk baton to John Kerry. Today, with a completed Iran nuclear deal, the White House and the Secretary of State, how no further interest in Palestine, rather it is left to the Qataris, the Palestinian Authority and anyone else who cares.

Obama’s UN Speech Ignores Israel but Hits Hard at Putin and Assad

JewishPress: Obama finally understands: “There are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa.”

President Barack Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly Monday was extraordinary in its total exclusion of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and its hard-hitting attack on the Assad regime in Syria and its ally Russia.

A strong indication that President Obama has finally realized what he and numerous predecessors did not understand was this statement:

There are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa.

It is not the first time he has said that, but unlike previous speeches, it was not followed up by the usual pie-in-the-sky statements that “Peace is made with enemies.” or “Solving the Israel-Palestinian Authority struggle is the key to bringing peace to the Middle East.

Saeb Erekat, who chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority and is secretary-general of the parent PLO, was extremely disappointed with Obama’s speech. He said:

Does President Obama believe that he is able to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) and terror or bring stability and security to the Middle East by ignoring the continuing Israeli occupation, settlements and the ongoing Israeli attacks on Al Aqsa [the mosque on the Temple Mount]?

Obama’s speech was a resounding “yes” to Erekat.

The “occupation” never was a threat to the Middle East, but the United States foreign policy gurus couldn’t figure that out, even when the Arab Spring rebellions upended stability and brought anarchy, termed by the United States as democracy, to Egypt, Libya, Iraq and other boiling pots in Arab Muslim countries.

Years after the United States ignored ISIS, it has become Public Enemy No. 1 and is being used brilliantly by Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify direct Russian military force in Syria.

When Putin told the United Nations he is fighting the Islamic State, he could have been more accurate, Russia may be the only country fighting ISIS.

The American-led strike force has proven to be pitiful, as TheJewishPress.com reported here last week on the Americana-trained Syrian rebels who betrayed the United States and delivered American weapons to Al Qaeda.

The President verbally attacked ISIS but he was extremely careful to be polite to Islam, stating:

Part of that effort [against ISIS] must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.

President Obama mentioned “Israel” zero times in his speech. Ditto for the terms “Palestinian Authority” and Palestine.”

The only time he mentioned “Middle East” was in the context quoted above, that there are no simple solutions.

But he mentioned Syrian eight times and Russia 15 times with harsh comments that were nothing short of cold war speech.

For example:

The history of the last two decades proves that in today’s world, dictatorships are unstable.

Consider Russia’s annexation of Crimea and further aggression in eastern Ukraine. America has few economic interests in Ukraine. We recognize the deep and complex history between Russia and Ukraine. But we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without consequence in Ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. That’s the basis of the sanctions that the United States and our partners impose on Russia. It’s not a desire to return to a Cold War.

But his speech was remarkably chilly towards Moscow. He flatly stated:

Russia’s state-controlled media may describe these events as an example of a resurgent Russia… And yet, look at the results. The Ukrainian people are more interested than ever in aligning with Europe instead of Russia. Sanctions have led to capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated Russians.

Pages: 1 2

Iran Busy Schedule in New York

Posted on by

Too busy in fact to attend Barack Obama’s opening United Nations General Assembly salvo, Iran is quite preoccupied.

Hassan Rouhani delivered his remarks and then left the chamber.

On the side, there are several meetings with Iran and one such provocative session is the Iranian proposal to swap 4 U.S. citizens held in prison for 19 Iranians the United States has jailed for violating sanctions.

There are still on going side discussions over the Iran deal and many open items remain unresolved as well as how the United Nations as a global body will address the human rights violations in Iran, if at all.

Rather than listen to the countless speeches on climate change, which Francois Hollande of France pushed hard, you can bet covert operations are in full swing following who is taking Iranian representatives to lunch, cocktails and dinner.

Lining up to do business with Iran is the order of the day by U.S. corporate CEO’s.

Rouhani meets with American CEOs, seeks Iran investment

Iranian president says economic conditions created by nuke deal should be used by major firms; US companies currently banned from doing business with Tehran

TimesofIsrael: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani met on Saturday with a group of American CEOs and managers to discuss possibilities for future, private US investment in Iran once the nuclear deal signed in July is implemented and sanctions are lifted in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear activities.

The meeting came on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York and a day after Rouhani met with a group of editors of American media outlets.

“The post-sanctions atmosphere has created new economic and political conditions which should be used by major trade, economic and industrial firms,” Rouhani told the group of American business leaders.

Following the signing of the nuclear agreement in Vienna in July, many European states rushed to renew trade relations with Iran with countries sending delegations to Tehran to discuss possibilities. European firms were also flocking to Tehran to sniff out lucrative business deals.

The US remains an exception as core sanctions imposed by Washington will remain even after the nuclear-related sanctions are lifted, meaning US companies would not be able to do business with Tehran.

These secondary sanctions are linked to US charges of Iranian human rights violations, terrorism and other allegations of wrongdoing. They have the effect of banning doing business with Iran, with only few exceptions, such as supplying parts for Iran’s civilian aviation sector.

But Rouhani expressed his conviction that these measures would also be lifted, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

“Tehran has not impeded the presence of the US firms, and these companies can also use the competitive atmosphere resulting from the post-sanction conditions for investment and transferring technology to Iran,” Rouhani said at the meeting.

There is a lot to miss out on for US firms in Iran. The country of 80 million people generates a $400 billion economy, boasts the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, the second-biggest stores of natural gas, and has well-established manufacturing and agricultural industries. It is also investing heavily in the tourism industry.

Rouhani was on a sort of charm offensive in New York ahead of his speech before the UNGA Monday. On Friday, he met with a group US editors to discuss a series of topics including the nuclear deal, developments in the Mideast and US-Iran ties and investment in Iran.

Rouhani said that in the wake of the nuclear deal, a door has opened for foreign investment in Iran.

“I think there are great opportunities, unrivaled opportunities, for American investment in Iran,” if the US government permits, he said.

Rouhani said relations between the two countries had improved in recent years but that there was “still a long road to travel” until they establish normal ties.

The Iranian president said the opposition expressed by some US lawmakers on the Iranian nuclear deal reflected “extremely bitter extremist judgments,” and was not well-received in Iran.

“It was as if they were on another planet,” he said, according to Reuters. “They did not seem to know where Iran was.”

“The nuclear issue is a big test within the framework of issues between the United States and Iran,” Rouhani told the group. “If we can see that we can reach success…and both sides have contributed to that success in good faith, then perhaps we can build on that.”

Rouhani said implementation of the nuclear deal would improve the atmosphere to allow progress to be made.

He also said that Iran can play a constructive role in addressing the threat of the Islamic State group, which has seized control of large swaths of Syria and Iraq, and that world powers were wrong to try to keep Iran out of the discussions on how to deal with the threat.

Iran is “a powerful and effective country in the region, this is undeniable,” Rouhani said. Without Iranian intervention on the side of the Baghdad government at a crucial juncture last year, he said, the Islamic State might already have taken over all of Iraq.

“Had it not been for Iran’s help, Baghdad would have fallen and certainly Daesh would have been ruling in Baghdad,” he said.

 

 

Digesting Putin today and in the Near Future

Posted on by

CNN: President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet during next week’s gathering of the United Nations General Assembly, a senior administration official said. The official noted the meeting comes “at the request of President Putin.”

“Given the situations in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the President believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians,” the official said.

White House officials have repeatedly complained about Russia’s recent military buildup in Syria, a move the Kremlin insists is aimed at defeating ISIS. But Obama administration officials suspect Putin is attempting to gain a foothold in the war-torn country should it collapse under the weight of a bloody civil war.

“Russia’s decision to double down on Assad is a losing bet,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, accusing Putin of propping up Syria’s embattled leader, Bashar al-Assad.

During their bilateral discussion, Obama will press Putin to deescalate tensions in Eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian forces continue to clash with the Ukrainian military.

RussiaDirect: At the UN later this month, Vladimir Putin will likely eschew the bombastic and hypocritical statements about Russia’s role in the world that many Western analysts are expecting.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kazan, Russia on July 24, 2015. Photo: AP

According to numerous forecasts, the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, scheduled to start in late September this year, could be the scene of a blazing rhetorical battle.

The General Assembly will feature speeches by the heads of the world’s leading countries, with U.S. President Barack Obama, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani potentially mounting the rostrum in sequence on Sept. 28, the very first day of the gathering.

Of course, the ceremonial nature of the 70th anniversary of the event will leave a mark on the content of the speeches, and the leaders of the great powers are unlikely to set about listing their grievances without prolix preambles and platitudes.

Rather, attentive listeners will have to read between the lines and fish out their own interpretations from the stream of evasive phrases and allusions.

However, such sessions always demand the appearance of a maverick speaker to tear up the script and add spice to the staid proceedings. In previous years, the presidents of Iran and Venezuela have played this role, but at the 70th Session of the General Assembly the odds-on favorite is Putin.

 Recommended: “Putin UN trip might lead to a second Munich in New York.” 

All eyes and ears will be tuned to the Russian president for potentially scandalous denunciations of the United States and its allies, and off-the-wall solutions to international exigencies. Journalists, of course, would love for him to sail close to the wind, thereby livening up their reports and ensuring a wider audience.

But all told, one must be prepared for the fact that such expectations might be in vain. Neither can it be ruled out that Putin will suddenly decide to subcontract his UN speech to a subordinate.

in today’s international climate, particularly in the UN, it is hard for the Russian president to take the moral high ground over his opponents

The fact is that in today’s international climate, particularly in the UN, it is hard for the Russian president to take the moral high ground over his opponents. And without the certainty of victory, Putin will not act — or will at least limit himself to a formal address.

From the Atlantic Council:

The Kremlin says Russia will take countermeasures if the U.S. places new nuclear weapons at a base in Germany.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s comments, reported Wednesday by Russian news agencies, came in response to a report by Germany’s ZDF television. The report said that preparation is underway by the U.S. to station B61-12 nuclear bombs at Buechel Air Base in Germany.

ZDF said its information was based on examination of U.S. federal budget reports. The claim couldn’t immediately be confirmed….

Peskov said “unfortunately, if this step is implemented … it may disrupt the strategic balance in Europe and therefore will clearly make Russia take corresponding countermeasures to re-establish the balance.”

—————————————————————-

From RussiaDirect:

In the middle of September, the Russian authorities closed the American Center at the Russian State Library of Foreign Literature in Moscow. This happened after 22 years of the center’s activity in the sphere of bilateral cultural exchanges and shortly after the death of Ekaterina Genieva, a famous librarian and cultural critic as well as former president of George Soros’ Open Society Institute in Russia, who did her best as the director of the library to prevent this move.

Closing the American Center is the next step in the Russian authorities’ general campaign against “foreign agents,” primarily, American ones. Over the past two years, American centers across Russia have been shut down. Nearly one year ago, Russia cancelled the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) Program – the largest educational exchange program between Russia and the U.S.

Putin continues to challenge NATO and those states with an established NATO relationship or getting military support with particular emphasis on the United States. The matter of Ukraine and the Baltic States is far from being settled.

RFEU: NATO has expressed concern after a news report that Russia is building a large military base near its border with Ukraine.

Speaking to RFE/RL on September 10, a NATO spokesman said that, “Overall, NATO remains concerned about Russia’s military buildup near Ukraine’s borders and its continued attempts to destabilize Ukraine.”

Reuters reported on September 9 that Moscow had started building a major military base in Belgorod Oblast, which abuts the Luhansk region of Ukraine that has been a hotspot of conflict between Ukrainian forces and separatists that NATO says are being trained and reinforced by Russian troops.

The report said workers were erecting a perimeter fence at the alleged site, near the town of Valuiki, less than 20 kilometers from Ukrainian territory.

Citing public documents, the news agency said the Defense Ministry is building the base on a 300-hectare site.

The facility is to house ammunition depots and barracks for 3,500 soldiers, as well as a recreation center with a skating rink and a swimming pool.

The ministry says it plans to use the base to train soldiers on artillery and army air defense, as well as in driving armored vehicles. The plan includes a site for studying the tactics of the U.S. military.