Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Moscow is colluding with Syria’s Assad

SYRIA

Idlib

Syria conflict: ‘Chemical attack’ in Idlib has claimed the lives of 72 people. More casualties are expected.

Last September, President Barack Obama expressed doubt as to whether the United States could expect Russia to help end the bloody insurrection and civil war in Syria. In a speech that Mr Obama gave, he claimed that there were ‘gaps of trust’ between the two governments. Some seven months on, those gaps have become chasms. The very notion that the Russians could be entrusted to act responsibly over one of the most volatile regions in the world now appears fanciful.

Every iota of evidence from the recent ghastly atrocity in Syria’s rebel-held Idlib province indicates that the forces of President Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes. The Russian version of events – that an airstrike hit a rebel armoury, releasing toxic agents and nerve gases – has been roundly dismissed by every serious political actor.

According to Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, the attack ‘bears all the hallmarks’ of Assad’s regime. It is believed that a nerve agent, sarin nerve gas, was used in killing dozens of innocent people.

Mr Rycroft says there is no intelligence to suggest rebel groups can access the sort of chemical weapons that appear to have been used in the strikes.

The suspected chemical attack has so far claimed 72 lives, with the death toll likely to rise as rescue and aid workers search for survivors. All the while, Russia has opposed a UN resolution drafted by Britain, France and the US which condemns chemical attacks in Syria and urges the government’s co-operation in an investigation.

Many will believe that Russia’s stance is little short of collusion, and for all the frustration that is being felt in the UN at present, it is imperative that more pressure is brought on Moscow as well as the Chinese to ensure Assad makes good on his previous pledge to give up his chemical weapons stockpile.

Standard
Britain, NATO, Russia, United States

US-UK relations on NATO and Russia

WASHINGTON-LONDON

trump-may-reaffirm-us-uk-special-relationship

Ties between the US and Britain have “never been stronger”, US President Donald Trump said as he welcomed British Prime Minister Theresa May to the White House.

President Donald Trump is 100 per cent behind NATO, Theresa May has declared.

Following their first talks in the White House, the Prime Minister has said that the U.S. and UK were united in their “unshakeable commitment” to the alliance, and that both leaders recognise NATO as the “bulwark of our collective defence”.

However, the pair are set for a collision course on how to handle Vladimir Putin after President Trump said he hoped to have a “fantastic relationship” with the Russian leader. The British Prime Minister said she strongly supported continuing sanctions against Russia, but Mr Trump’s newly assembled administration said the lifting of sanctions was on the table.

Earlier this month, the president caused alarm across Europe as he dismissed NATO as “obsolete” and expressed a desire for warmer ties with Mr Putin. During his election campaign Mr Trump even suggested he could withdraw the US from the military alliance if other European members did not spend more money on defence.

Mrs May has pledged to work in persuading other EU leaders to meet their NATO commitment of spending 2 per cent of national income on defence. She has said that member states need to make sure they are equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as combatting conventional forms of war.

But, there are clear differences between the US and UK on Russia. In comments that would have been alarming to No 10, the president said of Mr Putin: ‘I don’t know the gentleman. I hope we have a fantastic relationship. That’s possible and it’s also possible that we won’t. We will see what happens.’

President Trump, said: ‘I have had many times where I thought I would get along with people and I don’t like them at all… And I have had some where I didn’t think I was going to have much of a relationship and it turned out to be a great relationship.’

Mr Trump has also said that he hoped for a ‘great relationship’ with China.

Mrs May said the UK would not back down on Russian sanctions amid suggestions Mr Trump could agree to lift them.

The Prime Minister said: ‘As far as the UK is concerned on sanctions for Russia in relation to their activities in the Ukraine, we have been very clear that we want to see the Minsk agreement (aimed at resolving the conflict between Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels) fully implemented.

‘We believe the sanctions should continue until we see that Minsk agreement fully implemented, and we’ve been continuing to argue that inside the European Union.’

Mr Trump has not answered directly whether he would remove the measures. A senior adviser to the U.S. President said that US sanctions against Moscow, and other issues, would be on the table.

Barack Obama’s administration and the EU hit Moscow with sanctions for sending in troops and supporting pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. Earlier this month Mr Trump suggested his administration could lift them in return for a nuclear arms deal – irrespective of whether Mr Putin withdrew troops from the Ukraine.

The comments have sparked fears that an emboldened Russia could launch a full-scale invasion in the Ukraine or Baltic States.

Responding to the possibility of sanctions being lifted, the former head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said: ‘I would urge strong caution against reversing any sanctions on Russia without concrete concessions.

‘Easing sanctions will only embolden Russia’s aggression in the region, putting the security interests of Ukraine and the United States in jeopardy.’


The U.S. softens its stance on torture

Donald Trump has dropped his controversial threat to revive the use of torture. This follows a warning from Theresa May who said it would force Britain to curb intelligence sharing.

In what will be seen as a dramatic about-turn, the US President has indicated that he would not now order secret service interrogators to use torture despite maintaining “it works”. Mr Trump said he would defer to his security advisers who are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of torture.

Mr Trump sparked an angry backlash when he first spoke out in favour of waterboarding, saying the West had to “fight fire with fire” in the war on terrorism.

His comments sparked alarm in the British intelligence community, with sources warning rules banning intelligence sharing with states that use torture would prohibit vital co-operation with the US. The U.S. President said he was bowing to the advice given to him by his Defence Secretary, General James Mattis, who has seen active service in the Middle East and who is opposed to torture.

Protagonists argue that extreme interrogation methods should be used if it saves lives.

Standard
China, Donald Trump, Europe, Military, Poland, Russia, United Nations, United States

The United States and other global risks

UNITED STATES

us-troops-in-poland

Poland and the Baltic states feel threatened by Russia’s recent deployment of nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian territory wedged between Poland and Lithuania. The U.S. has responded by sending troops and reinforcements to Poland.

Intro: We need to turn away from Donald Trump’s Twitter feed and concentrate on some of the more worrying developments that the United States are involved in.

Much of the attention in the United States over the past week has been on Donald Trump and what the Russians may or may not have got on embarrassing material about his business and private life. The revelations have been fascinating, the risk of Mr Trump being held for blackmail on any hidden agenda with Russia lurid, but, nevertheless, it is no wonder such news has dominated the headlines.

Beneath all of this, however, there has been much more serious global developments with US involvement, eclipsed by the shenanigans and salacious disclosures of the incoming president’s behaviour. But it is best that they do not go unnoticed.

The first was the biggest deployment of U.S. troops in Europe since the end of the cold war. Some one thousand troops (of a promised four thousand) were deployed to Poland, part of President Barack Obama’s response to the nervousness of central European states in the face of Russian aggression. Agitated concerns have been expressed in many European states ever since Russia’s belligerence and actions in Ukraine and the Crimea. Notably, this is the first-time U.S. troops have been permanently stationed along Russia’s western border.

More than 80 main battle tanks and hundreds of armoured vehicles have already arrived in Germany and are being moved into eastern Europe by road and rail.

The Kremlin has been angered by the deployment, branding the arrival of tanks and reinforcements as a threat to Russia’s security.

Last October Russia sent nuclear-adaptable Iskander missiles to the Polish border and in December deployed Bastion anti-ship missile launchers to the Baltic. America has now responded to that threat given its commitment to peace in Europe. An old-fashioned arms build-up is now taking shape.

This is not the only part of the world where Russia and the U.S. are squaring up to each other. In another scenario, Russia has a powerful partner – China. The Asian economic powerhouse has also said U.S. actions in the region, namely in the South China Sea, are a threat to its national security.

In recent days China has sent its only aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Strait, largely seen as a provocative move amid ongoing tensions between Beijing and Taiwan. China claims that Taiwan is its rightful province.

China is also deeply resentful about a joint plan between the U.S. and South Korea to deploy an advanced missile defence system, ostensibly a defence system against any missiles fired from North Korea. China is North Korea’s only ally.

It is understood that representatives from Beijing and Moscow met last week and that they had agreed to take ‘further counter-measures’ in response to the U.S.-South Korea plan. It is not known what those counter-measures will be but it is likely that will be from a range of economic, military and diplomatic relations they have at their disposal.

Mr Trump is already heightening tensions in the region, first with his earlier decision to break diplomatic protocol and call Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-Wen, and then his secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson saying the U.S. should deny Beijing access to new islands it has built in the heavily disputed waters of the South China Sea. Many in China, reinforced by editorials in Chinese newspapers, believe such U.S. action could result in war.

Rather than being obsessed and preoccupied with Mr Trump’s Twitter feed we should be concentrating instead on the bigger, more pressing, issues.

Standard