Wed Jun 1st, 2022 at 07:23:00 PM EST
Remember Kajsa Ollongren showing the confidential papers as the longest cabinet formation for Rutte IV nearly collapsed.
Ollongren was a joyful person she managed to get extra funds for military spending just like candy for kids. Austerity is coming as due to lack of funds for mental health, family and youth support, higher cost of living. Damn you in Dutch politics.
From my diary at the end of 2014 ...
Russia to Meet NATO Challenge, Nukes As Last Resort
[From the archives @BooMan - difficult to find --- and with support of the WayBack Machine - Oui]
Gorbachev: It's up to Europe to prevent new Cold War between US and Russia
The 83-year-old political veteran believes that it's the White House which is to blame for the current tensions with the Kremlin. The Americans decided that they've won the Cold War and they are still intoxicated by this "triumph," he said.
"I don't want to praise the current Russian authorities too much. It also makes a lot of mistakes, but today the danger comes from the US stance," Gorbachev said.
Russia went through extremely difficult times after the collapse of the USSR and the Americans took advantage of the situation, but now the situation has changed, Gorbachev said.
"It's good that the president [Vladimir Putin] now cares about security, defense capability, development of new weapons and modernization of the military. We are now well armed. And if necessary we can strike back. But this isn't the case right now. There are signs of a new Cold War and this process must be stopped."
Khodorkovsky Contradicts US When Commenting on Crimea's Reunion With Russia
US Think Tanks Hold Roundup Discussions on Ukrainian Crisis
The right-leaning, conservative Heritage Foundation invited Peter Doran, director of research at former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's Center for European Policy Analysis, and Ukrainian blogger Nikolay Vorobiov to join their Margaret Thatcher Fellow Luke Coffey to ask "what are the Obama administration, the European Union and NATO doing to support Ukraine's national and territorial integrity?"
Duran started his statement by quoting from Henry Kissinger's revealing interview in Der Spiegel, chiding the elder statesman for having suggested that Western powers did not understand Ukraine's relationship with Russia when they decided to intervene.
Duran also disagrees with Kissinger's remark that "nobody is willing to fight over eastern Ukraine," declaring that in fact, "Russia can be stopped." To achieve this goal, Duran suggests returning to a world order based on treaties rather than armies -- apparently unaware of the military aggression behind America's global interest. He advocates arming and training Ukrainian soldiers with "lethal military assistance," the continuation of "crippling sanctions" to show Russia that there are costs when their actions impede on America's interests in Eastern Europe, and the modernization of NATO to permanently occupy Eastern Europe.
Heritage Foundation: The Battle for Eastern Ukraine | Dec. 2014 |
Russia, NATO, Trump: The Shadow World | New York Book Review | by Robert Cottrell
NATO and Russia are close to war, according to General Sir Richard Shirreff, recently NATO's second-in-command. In 2017: War with Russia, he writes that Russia could invade the Baltic states, which are NATO members, while NATO does nothing. When crisis strikes, the British prime minister is at the pub, the Germans are paralyzed by anxiety, and the Greeks and Hungarians are in Russia's pocket. The Americans are raring to go, but three countries have to fall before they can persuade their European partners to share their sense of urgency.
And one could almost now say that Shirreff's alarmism has been overtaken by events, which are conspiring to demolish even the outward show of solidarity on which NATO relies for its deterrence. Britain's vote to leave the European Union and Turkey's post-coup crackdown call into question the strategic direction of two of NATO's major military powers. As for Donald Trump's argument during the presidential campaign that America's richer allies should pay adequately for their protection, it was a fair point in principle, but a fatal thing to say in public. It made clear that America's commitment to NATO would not be unconditional under President Trump; and if America's commitment is not unconditional, then fairly obviously it will not extend to nuclear war. The cat is out of the bag. Seen from Moscow, the West has not been in such inviting disarray since the Suez crisis of 1956. Whatever constraints Putin may now feel upon his land-grabbing instincts, they must be entirely domestic in nature. NATO is no longer one of them.
After Brexit, Europe at a Crossroad | @EuroTrib - 2018 |
Incremental steps to an era of isolating Russia and China - Cold War 2.0. Just like the rise of fascism in the 1930s and an unprecedented dose of propaganda, history repeating itself. Americans and Britons have been spoon fed rightwing policy - Islamophobia and Xenophobia - closing borders to refugees from war torn nations Europe, NATO and the US participated in. Going around and around. We all want to be armed to feel secure ... weapons are not the answer, on the contrary. Weapons are made to fight wars, not to make peace.
An excellent read here @EuroTrib ...
The US as nuclear rogue state. Part I of II | by Sirocco - August 2005 |
The NPT was to be implemented with the help of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and reviewed in special conferences every five years.
In brief, the NPT allows only five states to have nuclear weapons: the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China. These five - aka the permanent members of the UN Security Council - agree not to transfer nuclear weapons technology to others, who agree not to seek to develop nuclear weapons. But importantly, that is not all. In return for the vast majority of countries forever forswearing the right to have nuclear forces, the five also agreed in Article VI of the NPT eventually to get rid of theirs.
While little known, especially in the US, this requirement is not in dispute. It was a central premise when on May 11 1995, the Cold War firmly behind them, 170 countries made the historic decision to extend the treaty indefinitely. And in 1996, the International Court of Justice unanimously held that Article VI obligates states to "bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects." Indeed, the five recognized nuclear weapon states recommitted themselves to this goal at the 30-year Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, May 2000.
or a while, a spirit of optimism prevailed. Then the Bush administration took office, followed half a year later by 9/11. And suddenly the nuclear night engulfed us once again. As the International Herald Tribune would later observe:
The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released this year, indicates a clear intent to maintain a colossal nuclear arsenal for time without end. It lays out elaborate plans for designing and developing new generations of nuclear weapons for air, sea, and land deployment in 2020, 2030, and 2040. It does not name a date for any "unequivocal undertaking" on abolition
The world was astonished. Shocked nuclear arms advocates noted how this "makes a mockery of 30 years of US commitments" under the NPT. Nevertheless, just four months later, as if nothing whatsoever had happened, Bush thundered in a graduation speech at West Point: "We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them."
Let us look at some of the ways in which the United States has since systematically broken, not to say trampled on, the NPT and the 13 Practical Steps agreed upon in 2000. To begin with, there is the question of nuclear disarmament, or lack thereof.
U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure | Congressional Research Service 2002-2008 |