Russia Establishes Two Permanent Bases In Syria To Host Nuclear Warships And Warplanes

Russia"s defense ministry has announced it is now in the process of establishing two permanent military bases in war-torn Syria after President Putin authorized prior deals with the Syrian government to move forward. Though Russia maintains merely up to ten military bases on foreign soil, the installations in Tartus and Khmeimim will be the most strategically located, allowing for a growing and permanent Russian presence on the Mediterranean, something which has already raised eyebrows in the West.

Though Putin formally announced the planned withdrawal of Russian forces from active operations in Syria in early December, there were parallel plans going back to at least early summer to maintain a smaller permanent presence based on an agreement with the Damascus government to host Russian forces for at least 49 more years, which includes the option of being prolonged further. Personnel and military hardware will be stationed at permanent Russian bases in Tartus and Khmeimim - both of which are on or near the Mediterranean. 

Satellite image of Russia"s facility at Tartus Navy docks. Left: (Source: WikiMapia); Right: (Source: GoogleMaps)

According to Russian media reports, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu stated at a ministry meeting on Tuesday, “We have started the process of formation of our permanent forces [in Syria]." Though Tartus has operated as a Russian naval port since 1971 (referred to as a Material-Technical Support Point and not a "base") and was until recently minimally staffed mostly by civilian contractors, it will reportedly undergo a massive transformation and expansion, which is to include the capability of hosting nuclear-powered ships.  

Notably, though mainstream media is currently reporting the permanent Russian military presence as something "new" and dangerous in terms of an enduring Russian footprint in the Middle East, the Russian military relationship with Baathist Syria goes back decades into the Soveit era with the Tartus facility having been long key to Russian naval movements in the Mediterranean. 

According a summary of the planned expansion in RT News:

Under the agreement with Syria, the future base would be allowed to host up to 11 Russian warships, including those with a nuclear power plant. At the moment there is only one Russian nuclear-propelled military surface ship, the 24,000-ton battlecruiser ‘Pyotr Velikiy’, although Russia will soon have a nuclear icebreaker – albeit which is unlikely to be given a mission in the Mediterranean – while a brand new Lider-class destroyer project is at the design stage.

Khmeimim is located near Latakia - the major northwest Syrian city on the Mediterranean, and was built adjacent to the civilian Bassel Al-Assad International Airport to serve as "the strategic center of Russia"s military operation against Islamic State." It has primarily served as an airbase and prime troop logistical support location out of which Russian sorties have been flown since 2015, which ultimately served to overwhelmingly shift the momentum of the war in favor of the Assad government, which has now taken about 90% of all territory formerly held by terrorists, though the future of the country"s northeast - held by the Kurdish dominated and US-backed SDF remains to be seen.

Deployed Russian forces, via Lancashire News

Meanwhile as plans for the permanent bases have been confirmed, Russia says that the bulk of its forces in Syria have already been reduced, though this is currently being contested by both the Pentagon and Syrian opposition groups, who say Russian airstrikes and operations have actually been on the increase of late. On Wednesday the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) stated that over 48,000 Russian military personnel were deployed to Syria between 2015 and 2017, and that at least half of this number have been withdrawn after Vladimir Putin’s visit to the Khmeimim Military Airport earlier this month. And according to a previous statement from the Russian MoD, their forces claimed to help eliminate more than 62,000 militants during their two years inside the country.

However, the Pentagon remains predictably skeptical of Russian effectiveness against ISIS and other terrorists, with the US recently claiming that it alone is responsible for the defeat of the terror group, which resulted in Moscow pushing back against such claims. Washington hawks are likely to argue that Russian permanent bases in Syria are justification enough for the Pentagon to perpetually maintain its own more than dozen small military bases in the country"s north and northeast. 

At the same time from the Russian perspective, American policy as well as that of major regional US allies like Israel have been aggressive and erratic, and appear to still include regime change as a long-term policy goal in Syria. An equally long-term Russian military presence will allow Moscow to immediately deploy or build-up its forces in Syria should Damascus come under direct threat from external countries at any point in the near or distant future.

Russia Begins Withdrawing Troops, Aircraft From Syria

Most of the remaining Russian forces operating in Syria, including the Tu-22M3 long-range bombers and Beriev A-50 AWACSs are returning to home just days after President Vladimir Putin surprised the world by announcing that Russian military forces would swiftly withdraw from Syria – a promise that elicited accusations of insincerity from the West.

The first contingent of Russian aircraft left on Tuesday, according to Russia Today.

A Russian military police battalion of the Southern Military District arrived aboard two cargo aircraft in the city of Makhachkala, in the North Caucasus Republic of Dagestan, according to the Defense Ministry.

The ministry published a video of warplanes departing Syria at dawn followed by military accompanied by footage of soldiers’ relatives greeting them in Russia.

A Russian military police battalion was deployed to Syria in December 2016 to maintain security in de-escalation zones. The officers escorted more than 1,700 humanitarian convoys and ensured civilians’ security.

The first military aircraft to arrive back in Russia were the Tu-22M3 bombers and the Beriev A-50 airborne early warning and control aircraft. The long-range bombers landed at their home airbase in Russia’s Kaluga region after a brief interlude in North Ossetia.

“Flight crews successfully accomplished tasks on delivering strikes on terrorists’ objects in the Syrian Arab Republic,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement. It did not elaborate on how many Tu-22M3 aircraft arrived at the base.

The A-50 arrived in Russia’s Ivanovo. The pilots were greeted with accolades for a “successful task performance."

A total of 25 aircraft, as well as Russian special forces, military police and sapper teams are preparing to leave Syria, where they have assisted Syrian government forces in the battle against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorists since September 2015. The terrorists have been more or less vanquished – no longer holding any significant territory in Syria. On December 6, the Russian General Staff declared the liberation of Syria from IS, saying that “all terrorist units of ISIS” in the country had been destroyed.

After the withdrawal, Russia will continue to use Khmeimim Airbase and the Syrian port of Tartus, which provides technical support for the Russian Navy, and the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria will keep working.
 

Putin Blasts Reporter Over Question Of "Disappointment" In Trump: "He Is Not My Bride"

As tensions seemingly mount between the U.S. and Russia, an inconvenient fact for a media complex obsessed with progressing a narrative that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is now controlled by the Kremlin, Putin offered up a rather unique way of responding to a reporter"s question over whether he was "disappointed" in President Trump.  Speaking at a media conference on the last of the BRICS summit in China, Putin told a reporter that his question regarding his personal feelings toward the U.S. President were "very naive....he is not my bride."

"Regarding frustration and non-frustration your question sounds very naive.  He is not my bride and I"m not his groom." 

"We are doing state activity and each country has its own interests.  Trump follows his country"s national interests in his activity and I follow mine.  I"m really counting on that..."

Of course, these questions come just after the US State Department announced last week that is had ordered the Russian government to close its San Francisco consulate, a chancery annex in Washington and a consular annex in New York City.  The move came exactly one month after Vladimir Putin ordered the expulsion of 755 US diplomats from Russia, as well as the seizure of two diplomatic compounds used by the US in Russia on July 31. 

Here was the full statement issued by the U.S. State Department:

Achieving Parity in Diplomatic Missions

The United States has fully implemented the decision by the Government of the Russian Federation to reduce the size of our mission in Russia. We believe this action was unwarranted and detrimental to the overall relationship between our countries.

In the spirit of parity invoked by the Russians, we are requiring the Russian Government to close its Consul. General in San Francisco, a chancery annex in Washington, D.C., and a consular annex in New York City. These closures will need to be accomplished by September 2.

With this action both countries will remain with three consulates each. While there will continue to be a disparity in the number of diplomatic and consular annexes, we have chosen to allow the Russian Government to maintain some of its annexes in an effort to arrest the downward spiral in our relationship.

The United States hopes that, having moved toward the Russian Federation"s desire for parity, we can avoid further retaliatory actions by both sides and move forward to achieve the stated goal of both of our presidents: improved relations between our two countries and increased cooperation on areas of mutual concern. The United States is prepared to take further action as necessary and as warranted.

All that said, we"re sure it"s just a matter of time until CNN tells us that this is all just a clever ruse to distract from Trump"s collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

The Costs Of Ignoring Russia

Authored by Dmitri Simes via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation

Improving the dangerously unstable U.S.-Russia relationship will be very difficult, but it is important for U.S. national security. Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation that could destroy American (and Russian) civilization as we know it. Short of that, Russia can do much more than it is today to damage U.S. interests and values without taking extreme risks. Accordingly, the United States should explore normalizing its interaction with Russia. Washington should do so without illusions, and from a position of strength.

Today, America and Russia are adversaries with different approaches to key international issues, different systems of government and, in many respects, different values. Each confronts domestic obstacles to efforts to establish better relations. These obstacles are particularly challenging in the United States, where Congress, the mainstream media and much of the American public view Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a vicious enemy akin to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, if not Hitler’s Germany. Unlike China, Russia has only limited economic interaction with America—and therefore few Americans see a practical positive side to contacts with Russia.

President Putin has much greater latitude in shaping his country’s foreign policy, including exploring a new beginning with Washington. Yet in a period of economic difficulty before Russia’s 2018 presidential election, Putin is loath to appear weak under foreign pressure.

At the same time, Washington and Moscow continually calculate how their relationship affects their close partners. Thus, for example, Russia cannot disregard how China and Iran might react if they perceive Russia as accommodating the United States on North Korea, Syria or other issues—especially if Moscow’s flexibility compromises their interests.

Yet failing to arrest the downward spiral in U.S.-Russia relations poses real dangers. The most dramatic, if least likely, is a direct military confrontation leading to uncontrollable escalation and potentially a global catastrophe. Many dismiss this risk, arguing that neither the United States nor Russia wants to commit suicide and would show restraint; however, the same assumption that the other side would pull back at the last moment contributed to World War I. The truth is that no one knows what might happen if U.S. and Russian warplanes started shooting at each another or if American cruise missiles hit Russian bases in Syria. Russia could retaliate asymmetrically, perhaps in eastern Ukraine, and fighting could escalate and spread in ways that trigger NATO’s Article Five guarantees. While the Obama administration may have considered nuclear weapons so terrible as to have little practical utility, Russian military doctrine explicitly describes tactical nuclear weapons as a viable option if Russia is under serious attack. Where would that lead?

Setting aside nuclear apocalypse, forswearing diplomacy with Moscow because it legitimizes an unsavory government and rewards bad behavior could prompt Russian officials to conclude that they have little left to lose and must weaken and confront what they would view as an unremittingly hostile America. Interfering in the 2016 election could pale by comparison to serious and sustained attacks on infrastructure, financial systems and other foundations of American society, all of which are highly vulnerable to cyberattack. Devastating U.S. retaliation would do little to help millions of affected Americans or to reassure those who escaped harm the first time. There is, likewise, a difference between failing to help the United States prevent proliferation in North Korea or elsewhere, as is the case today, and working actively to assist Pyongyang and other American foes to develop these capabilities. Moscow could arm and support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban too. If Russian leaders feel pushed into a corner, they could even consider a deal with ISIS or others whom they oppose today.

Finally, Russia could double down on its emerging alignment with China. Russia and China maintain strong mutual suspicions, and China is a much stronger country by most measures. Although both are interested in normal relations with the United States, and would be reluctant to go too far in ways that could lead to a serious conflict, they are fearful of and, indeed, irritated with Washington. They are drawing closer economically and militarily, and are increasingly coordinating their foreign policies. Moscow and Beijing are concerned over American-led encirclement and, specifically, expanding U.S. antimissile systems that threaten their retaliatory capabilities. At a minimum, the worse the U.S.-Russia relationship, the more a rising China can count on Russian support in any disagreement with the United States. Emboldening China in this fashion cannot be in the U.S. national interest.

To avoid these costs, any responsible U.S. government should want to normalize the relationship with Moscow. The objective should not be to become allies or friends, neither of which is possible or advisable. Instead, Washington should seek a narrow dialogue to avoid an unintended military confrontation, manage differences more effectively and, at times, work together where interests and priorities overlap.

Pursuing such an approach requires a clear explanation of the U.S. national interests at stake that Congress and the public can understand. It will also require sustained and disciplined attention from the president and a concerted effort to appoint and retain officials both committed to this approach and capable of executing it. Good chemistry between the two presidents is important, but it should be a tool, rather than a basis, of American policy.

The obstacles to seeking a new approach to Russia are so numerous and momentous that many may feel that even trying is not a good use of President Trump’s time, energy and limited political capital. Yet if it goes badly wrong, the U.S.-Russia relationship could end in nuclear conflict. It would be a travesty for America to do so much to avoid an imaginary mushroom cloud in Iraq and then to ignore far greater looming dangers in a collapsing relationship with Russia.

The first and most important task for any U.S. administration is to protect the survival and security of the American people. That is why no responsible administration could refuse to pursue a more stable relationship with Russia. It is why every new administration since the end of the Cold War has tried to do just that. No matter how futile these efforts may seem, the United States cannot afford to dismiss diplomacy with Moscow out of hand. Failing to try risks fueling a highly destructive self-fulfilling prophecy that could undermine U.S. national security, as well as America’s foreign-policy objectives around the globe.

Paul Craig Roberts Sees "A Ray Of Light" From Europe

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

America has been a discouraging landscape ever since the neoconservatives took over US foreign policy during the Clinton regime and started the two decades of war crimes that define 21st century America and ever since US corporations betrayed the US work force by moving American jobs to Asia.

The outlook became darker when the Obama regime resurrected the Russian Threat and elevated the prospect of military conflict between the nuclear powers.

As Europe is caught in the middle, in normal circumstances European countries would have insisted that Washington cease the gratuitous provocations of Russia. But normal circumstances have not existed.

Since the end of WW2, European countries have been vassals without independent economic and foreign policies.

Europe hosts US military bases that threaten Russia. Europe has backed Washington’s wars of aggression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Washington’s air attacks on provinces of Pakistan, and Washington’s use of Saudi Arabia to fight its proxy war against Yemen.

Europe has backed Washington’s gratuitous economic sanctions against Iran and Russia, sanctions that have cost Europe much and Washington little.

Accustomed to having its way with Europe, Washington commits Europe without even consulting the vassal governments.

Now it seems Washington’s extraordinary arrogance and hubris has resulted in overreach. Confronted with a new round of sanctions against Russia, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission told Washington that the time has passed when Washington can put its interests first and Europe’s last.

The new sanctions have devastating economic and political consequences for Europe.

Juncker said that if Europe’s “concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days.”

The German and French foreign ministries added their support to Juncker. The German foreign ministry said:

“It is not in the Americans’ right to judge or stipulate which way European companies may engage in cooperation with any third parties – particularly, with Russian energy companies.”

The French foreign ministry said: the sanctions “contradict international law” due to their “extraterritorial reach.”

Europe views the sanctions as a tool of US industrial policy that elevates US business interests over Europe’s business interests.

Let’s hope that Washington’s arrogance will not permit Washington to back down and that Europe will give Washington the finger and disengage from the American Empire.

Without Europe to host its military bases and to parrot its propaganda, Washington’s ability to threaten Russia would significantly decline. Indeed, a continuation of the hostile threatening attitude toward Russia would leave Washington isolated in the world.

No country wants the risk of experiencing nuclear war merely for the sake of Washington’s unilateralism.

Russia To Stay In Syria For The Next 50 Years

While the Trump administration appears set to withdraw US troops from Syria in the not too distant future, as hinted by the recent decision to reverse the Obama-era decision to stop arming "moderate rebels" fighting the Assad regime, Vladimir Putin has a slightly different strategic vision for the proxy war-torn nation.

On Wednesday, the Russian president signed a law ratifying a deal with the Syrian government allowing Russia to keep its air base in Syria for almost half a century, Reuters reported.

Under the original deal signed in this January in Damascus, Russia can use its Hmeymim air base in Latakia Province which it has used to carry out air strikes against forces opposing President Bashar al-Assad, Russia could modify the terms of its presence in the country. So with the US on its way out, Putin made it clear that clear that Russia isn"t going anywhere from the one nation that has emerged as a key regional presence for Russia in the middle-east.

The Russian president approved the agreement on Wednesday, after the two chambers of the Russian parliament backed it earlier this month, according to the government"s official information portal. The document says Russian forces will be deployed at the Hmeymim base for 49 years with the option of extending that arrangement for 25-year periods.

The Hmeymim airbase has been at the heart of Moscow"s military foray since it intervened in the conflict in September 2015, helping turn the tide in favor of Assad, as well as disrupt key ISIS oil supply lines which have resulted in the imminent collapse of the Islamic State.

EU "Sounds Alarm" Over New US Sanctions On Russia; Germany Threatens Retaliation

Late on Friday, Congressional negotiators reached a deal to advance a bill that would punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election and restrict the president’s power to remove sanctions on Moscow, according to the WSJ. The measure, if signed into law, will also give Congress veto powers to block any easing of Russian sanctions by the president. And while it remained unclear if President Donald Trump would sign the bill if it reaches his desk, which is now likely, the loudest complaint about the bill to date has emerged noe from the Oval Office, but from Brussels, after the EU once again urged (and warned, and threatened) US lawmakers to coordinate their anti-Russia actions with European partners, or else.

As Reuters reports, the European Union "sounded an alarm on Saturday" about moves in the U.S. Congress to step up U.S. sanctions on Russia, urging Washington to keep coordinating with its G7 partners.  In a statement by a spokeswoman after Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress reached a deal that could see new legislation pass, the European Commission warned of possibly "wide and indiscriminate" "unintended consequences", especially on the EU"s efforts to diversify energy sources away from Russia, adding that "unilateral measures" by the US could undermine transatlantic unity.

"We highly value the unity that is prevailing among international partners in our approach towards Russia"s action in Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions. This unity is the guarantee of the efficiency and credibility of our measures," the Commission said in its statement.

"We understand that the Russia/Iran sanctions bill is driven primarily by domestic considerations," it went on, referring to a bill passed in the U.S. Senate last month and to which lawmakers said on Saturday they had unblocked further obstacles.

"As we have said repeatedly, it is important that any possible new measures are coordinated between international partners to maintain unity among partners on the sanctions that has been underpinning the efforts for full implementation of the Minsk Agreements," the Commission said, referring to an accord struck with Moscow to try to end the conflicts in Ukraine.

"We are concerned the measures discussed in the U.S. Congress could have unintended consequences, not only when it comes to Transatlantic/G7 unity, but also on EU economic and energy security interests. This impact could be potentially wide and indiscriminate, including when it comes to energy sources diversification efforts.

"Sanctions are at their most effective when they are coordinated. Currently our sanctions regimes are coordinated. As a result their impact on the ground is increased and through coordination we are able to avoid surprises, manage potential impact on our own economic operators and address collectively efforts to circumvent such measures. Unilateral measures would undermine this," the Commission said.

"We therefore call on the U.S. Congress/authorities to engage with the partners, including the EU, to ensure coordination and to avoid any unintended consequences of the measures discussed."

Furthermore, Germany has already warned of "possible retaliation" if the United States moves to sanction German firms involved with building a new Baltic pipeline for Russian gas. EU diplomats are concerned that a German-U.S. row over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline being built by Russia"s state-owned Gazprom could complicate efforts in Brussels to forge an EU consensus on negotiating with Russia over the project.

The proposed restrictions against Moscow are part of the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act, aimed not only at Tehran, but also North Korea. Passed by the Senate last month, the measures seek to impose new economic measures on sectors of Russia’s economy. Among the new anti-Russia proposals, the legislation aims to introduce individual sanctions for investing in Russian pipeline project. It also outlines steps to hamper construction of Russia’s Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project, and is the reason why America"s European allies are on edge, worried they may be penalized for continuing a project in which they have already invested hundreds of millions.

The House is set to vote on the proposed legislation Tuesday, Brussels has already registered its unease even before the bill hits Donald Trump’s desk, urging Washington to consider European interests, especially in the energy sector. Noting that “the Russia/Iran sanctions bill is driven primarily by domestic considerations,” the European Commission has asked its American partners to coordinate measures against Russia with Europe and the rest of the G7.  

One month ago, we reported that Austria and Germany accused the U.S. of having ulterior motives in seeking to enforce the energy blockade, which they said is trying to help American natural gas suppliers at the expense of their Russian rivals. They also warned the threat of fining European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project "introduces a completely new, very negative dimension into European-American relations."  At the time, the foreign minister of Austria and Germany, Kern and Gabriel, urged the United States to back off from linking the situation in Ukraine to the question of who can sell gas to Europe. "Europe"s energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America," Kern and Gabriel said. The reason why Europe is angry Some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Ukraine, fear the loss of transit revenue if Russian gas supplies don"t pass through their territory anymore once the new pipeline is built.

Fast forward to today, when Reuters quoted the European Commission saying that “as we have said repeatedly, it is important that any possible new measures are coordinated between international partners to maintain unity among partners on the sanctions." It added that “we are concerned the measures discussed in the US Congress could have unintended consequences, not only when it comes to Transatlantic/G7 unity, but also on EU economic and energy security interests."

“This impact could be potentially wide and indiscriminate,” the Commission warned. “We therefore call on the US Congress/authorities to engage with the partners, including the EU, to ensure coordination and to avoid any unintended consequences of the measures discussed.”

Addressing the proposed bill, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow takes an “extremely negative” view of the new developments. President Vladimir Putin earlier cautioned that any new sanctions against Russia will only make US-Russian relations worse.

But it wasn"t just Russia and Europe eager to warn the US that any ongoing attempts to trap Trump into perpetuating the Deep State"s Russian policies would backfire: ahead of Congress clearing all potential hurdles for the bill, a number of American multinationals – including ExxonMobil, General Electric and Boeing, as well as MasterCard and Visa – raised concerns that the punitive measures will ultimately harm their interests, rather than that of the Kremlin.

Washington And Berlin On A Collision Course

The Russia sanctions bill that passed the US Senate by 98:2 on June 15 is a bombshell; it directly demonizes the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, under the Baltic Sea, which is bound to double Gazprom’s energy capacity to supply gas to Europe.

The 9.5 billion euro pipeline is being financed by five companies; Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall; Austria’s OMV; France’s Engie; and Anglo-Dutch Shell. All these majors operate in Russia, and have, or will establish, pipeline contracts with Gazprom.

In a joint statement, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern stressed that, “Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, not the United States of America”; “instruments for political sanctions should not be tied to economic interests”; and the whole thing heralds a “new and very negative quality in European-American relations”.

An oil trader in the Gulf bluntly told me, “the new sanctions against Russia basically amount to telling the EU to buy expensive US gas instead of cheap Russian gas. So the Germans and the Austrians basically told the Americans to buzz off.”

A top US intel source, Middle East-based and a dissident to the Beltway consensus, stresses how, “the United States Senate by a nearly unanimous vote have decided to declare war on Russia (sanctions are war) and Germany has threatened retaliation against the United States if it initiates sanctions.

Germany accused the United States of trying to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline of Russia to the EU so that the US can export their liquid natural gas to the EU, making the EU dependent on the United States.”
But then, there’s a possible game-changing aftermath; “That would spell the end of NATO if a trade war between the EU and the United States takes place.”

The usual Brexiteer suspects obviously are falling like a ton of bricks over the “Molotov-Ribbentrop 2 pipeline” – another trademark expression of paranoia by Poland.

They are even demonizing Germany for daring to do business with Russia, “undermining the security and economic interests of Eastern and Central Europe” and – yes, roars of laughter are in order — undermining “American emotional backing for NATO.”

So much pent-up “emotion” even leads to a nasty accusation of betrayal; “We know which side Poland is on. Which side is Germany on?”

What’s really unforgivable though is that Nord Stream 2, in practice, buries for good failed state Ukraine’s $2 billion in revenue from pipeline fees.

Nord Stream 2 is opposed by all the usual suspects; Poland; the Baltic states; Washington; but also the Nordic states. The top official argument is that it “harms EU energy security”. That in itself embeds a massive joke, as the EU has been harming itself in interminable “energy security” discussions in Brussels for over a decade.

Lucrative creative destruction, anyone?

Analyst Peter G. Spengler qualifies the US Senate bill as a “declared, but not yet executed act of warfare, an act of (sanctions) war against Germany and Austria directly, possible recipients within the EU indirectly.”

Spengler draws attention to the reminder of the FRG/USSR Agreement on Economic Cooperation of 1978 with a 25 years duration 1978 Agreement of Economic Cooperation between the then Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR, designed to last for 25 years; “This agreement together with all the foregoing treaties between West Germany and the Soviet Union were the basis on which [Helmut] Kohl could build his ‘Haus Europa’ with the Soviet Union/Russia from the summer of 1989 in Bonn onwards.”
Crucially, this agreement also included a gas transportation triangle between Moscow, Teheran and Bonn, and was “fiercely but completely clandestinely embattled by the Carter administration, among so many silent wars against the Federal Republic of Germany in those years.”

And guess who was trying to sabotage the agreement 24/7; recently deceased Polish “Grand Chessboarder” Zbigniew Brzezinski.

So nothing much changed since the late 1970s; Washington demonizing both Tehran and Moscow. The section of the US Senate bill related to Russia is some sort of after thought to yet another hardcore package against Iran, the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act (which includes the Russia sanctions.)

It’s not an accident that the US Senate sanctions bill targets energy; this is a sub-product of a fierce energy war. But what is the US Senate really up to? Call it creative (lucrative) destruction.
The US Senate is convinced that Nord Stream 2 “would compete with US exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe”. Thus the US government “should prioritize the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs, help United States allies and partners, and strengthen United States foreign policy”.

Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with helping “allies and partners”; it’s rather a case of US energy majors getting a little help from their friends/puppets in the Senate. It’s in the public domain how US energy majors donated over $50 million in 2015/2016 to get these people elected.

Watch those Hamburg fireworks

Compared to the US Senate, the role of the European Commission (EC) in the saga remained somewhat murky, until it became clear it will interfere via a “mandate”. This “mandate” will have to be approved by a “reinforced qualified majority” vote by member states, a higher than usual threshold of 72 percent of EU states representing 65 per cent of the population.

Spengler observes how, “the commission’s continued attempts to get a legal foot in the contracts between European companies and Gazprom would be much more detrimental and potentially efficient than even a President’s signing of the Senate (and House) sanctions law.”

So where will this all lead? Arguably towards an extremely messy clash “between the European Commission/Court of Justice and German/Austrian (plus Russian) jurisdiction.”

The Senate bill will have to be backed by a veto-proof majority in the House; that vote won’t happen before the G-20 in Hamburg. Then it would become law – assuming President Trump won’t squash it.

The key, “nuclear” issue is a non-mandatory clause for the US Treasury to sanction those five Western firms involved in Nord Stream 2. If the law is approved, the White House better ignore it. Otherwise Germany, Austria and France will definitely interpret it as a declaration of war.

Trump and Chancellor Angela Merkel will definitely be on a collision course at the G-20, with Merkel emphasizing discussions on climate change, refugees and no trade protectionism, much to Trump’s disgust. The Russia sanctions bill just adds to the unholy mess. Expect a lot of fireworks “celebrating” those bilaterals in Hamburg.

Caught On Video: Russian, NATO Jets In Near Standoff After F-16 Buzzes Defense Minister's Airplane

A day after a Russian fighter allegedly flew within 5 feet of a US reconnaissance plane traveling over the Baltic Sea, Reuters reports that a NATO F-16 fighter jet returned the favor when it tried to improperly approach a plane carrying the Russian defense minister. The plane was traveling to the city of Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave along the Baltic coast, where Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu was scheduled to discuss security issues with defense officials on Wednesday. The NATO aircraft was warded off by a Russian Su-27 jet, according to RT.

In an accounting of the incident, Reuters notes that one of the Russian fighter jets escorting Shoigu"s plane had inserted itself between the defense minister"s plane and the NATO fighter and "tilted its wings from side to side to show the weapons it was carrying, Russian agencies said." After that the F-16 promptly left the area.

A clip of the encounter was caught on tape by Russian journalists:

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that he has no information about the incident.

“It’s probably better to ask the Defense Ministry,” Peskov said in answer to journalists’ questions.

The latest provocative maneuver represents yet another escalation of tensions between the US and Russia. On Monday, Russia suspended cooperation with the US in Syria under the "memorandum of incident prevention in Syrian skies", warning that its missile defense would intercept any aircraft traveling in Russia’s area of operation after a US fighter jet shot down a Syrian regime aircraft on Sunday.

Russia slammed the US for shooting down the jet, calling the attack an “act of aggression" and claiming that the move benefited terrorists in the area. The Syrian regime says its jet was pursuing a fleeing ISIS convoy around the time it was shot down.  US officials claimed they tried to contact its Russia counterparts via an established “de-confliction line," though Russia has denied this, saying that if the US had reached out, the incident could’ve been avoided.

A US jet also downed a pro-regime drone on Monday in what Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy described as a “dangerous escalation" of tensions between the US and pro-Syrian regime powers like Iran and Russia.   “I think we’re getting closer and closer to open conflict between Iran and Russia and the American public need to know that we are moving very fast towards what could be another war in the Middle East – something Donald Trump promised he wouldn’t do when he ran for office.”

As RT notes, encounters between US and Russian warplanes over the Baltic are becoming more frequent. A Russian fighter jet intercepted a small group of US warplanes, including Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker military refueling aircraft, two B-1 bombers and one B-52, during a BALTOPS (Baltic Operations) annual training exercise on June 10.

NATO Holds Defense Drill Simulating Russian Invasion Of Baltics

NATO officials are growing increasingly nervous about the possibility of an invasion of the Baltic states ahead of Russian wargames planned this fall on the border of Belarus and Poland that could involve as many as 100,000 troops. That "anxiety" was on display this week, when US and British troops carried out the first NATO military exercise that involved a simulated defense of the Suwalki Gap, an area in northern Poland on the border with Lithuania that serves as the gateway to the Baltic region.

In other words, a drill against a Russian invasion of the Baltics states, and by extension, Europe.

NATO officials described the area as a “choke point” that, if it were taken by an invading force, could potentially isolate the Baltic states from their NATO allies, according to Reuters.

"The gap is vulnerable because of the geography. It"s not inevitable that there"s going to be an attack, of course, but ... if that was closed, then you have three allies that are north that are potentially isolated from the rest of the alliance", said U.S. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges.

 

"We have to practice, we have to demonstrate that we can support allies in keeping (the Gap) open, in maintaining that connection," he said.

 

Since Russia’s annexation of Ukraine back in 2014, NATO has shifted four battlegroups totaling just over 4,500 troops to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

US and UK aircraft took part in the exercises, alongside troops from Poland, Lithuania and Croatia in a simulated defense of the potential flashpoint in an area several hours" drive from where a U.S. battalion is stationed at Orzysz base in Poland, Reuters reported.

Of course, Russia has repeatedly said it has no plans to invade the Baltics, and has warned that the "defensive" buildup in NATO forces against its borders is an unprovoked act of aggression againt Russia.

However, Russia"s protests have done little to sway the US Senate, which passed new sanctions against Russia this week, allegedly in retribution for Russia’s meddling in the US election. The measures were included in an Iran sanctions bill that was widely expected to pass, but as the Hill reported yesterday, President Donald Trump is leaning on House Republicans to drop the bill because he fears it could damage US-Russia relations.

In addition to Trump, Germany and Austria have also voiced their displeasure for one measure outlined in the sanctions bill, asking the US drop its opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would pump Russian gas to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. Austria"s Chancellor Christian Kern and Germany"s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said earlier this week that it appeared that the opposition of the pipeline was aimed at securing US energy jobs and pushing out Russian gas deliveries to Europe.

“Europe"s energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America," Kern and Gabriel said.

Meanwhile, NATO acknowledged the symtoblic nature of the drills, saying the exercises were more of a gesture than a dress rehearsal for war. As Brigadier General Valdemaras Rupsys, head of Lithuania"s land forces, explained, “this is only a small-scale drill compared to what would be needed in case of a real attack.”

'Fake News'? James Clapper Notes "Curious Pattern" Of Deaths Among Russian Elites

Earlier in the year, a number of non-mainstream media outlets noted the fact that an unusual number of high-ranking Russian diplomats were turning up dead. Mainstream media shunned the narrative as "conspiracy" or "fake news", which makes the fact that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper pointing out to CNN that there is a "curious pattern" of deaths even more intriguing.

As we noted previously, seven Russian diplomats have died in the last 3 months - all but one died on foreign soil. Some were shot, while other causes of death are unknown. Note that a few deaths have been labeled "heart attacks" or "brief illnesses."

1. You probably remember Russia"s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov — he was assassinated by a police officer at a photo exhibit in Ankara on December 19.

2. On the same day, another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. The gun was found under the bathroom sink but the circumstances of the death were under investigation. Polshikov served as a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Foreign Ministry.

3. Russia"s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York this past week. Churkin was rushed to the hospital from his office at Russia"s UN mission. Initial reports said he suffered a heart attack, and the medical examiner is investigating the death, according to CBS.

4. Russia"s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after a "brief illness January 27, which The Hindu said he had been suffering from for a few weeks.

5. Russian Consul in Athens, Greece, Andrei Malanin, was found dead in his apartment January 9. A Greek police official said there was "no evidence of a break-in." But Malanin lived on a heavily guarded street. The cause of death needed further investigation, per an AFP report. Malanin served during a time of easing relations between Greece and Russia when Greece was increasingly critiqued by the EU and NATO.

6. Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping draft the Trump dossier, was found dead in the back of his car December 26, according to The Telegraph. Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned Rosneft.

7. The top official of Russia"s space agency, 56-year-old Vladimir Evdokimov, was found dead in his prison cell (where he was being questioned on charges of embezzlement). Investigators found two stab wounds on Evdokimov"s body, but no determination had been made of whether they were self-inflicted.

If we go back further than 3 months...

8. On the morning of U.S. Election Day, Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov was found unconscious at the Russian Consulate in New York and died on the scene. Initial reports said Krivov fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. BuzzFeed reports Krivov may have been a Consular Duty Commander, which would have put him in charge of preventing sabotage or espionage.

9. In November 2015, a senior adviser to Putin, Mikhail Lesin, who was also the founder of the media company RT, was found dead in a Washington hotel room according to the NYT. The Russian media said it was a "heart attack," but the medical examiner said it was "blunt force injuries."

10. If you go back a few months prior in September 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s driver was killed too in a freak car accident while driving the Russian President’s official black BMW  to add to the insanity.

If you include these three additional deaths that’s a total of ten Russian officials that have died over the past 2 years.

Many have questioned whether this rash of deaths was being undertaken by the deep state in retaliation for Putin"s defiance... former acting director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Michael Morell openly conspired to “covertly” kill Russians and Iranians in Syria in an August 2016 interview with Charlie Rose. While Morell was talking about killing Russian and Iranian soldiers it is definitely a strange piece to add to this puzzle.

Are we witnessing a battle between the deep state and Russia in a spy versus spy plotline or is this all just a freak coincidence?

Well, as The Hill reports, James Clapper, speaking to host Jake Tapper Sunday on CNN"s "State of the Union", is here to set things straight...

"Well, this obviously has been a curious pattern."

"We have had difficulty, though, in actually generating an evidentiary trail that could equate convincingly and compellingly in a court of law a direct connection between certain figures that have been eliminated who apparently ran afoul of Putin."

Aha... So that"s the narrative - back to the "Putin is a killer" meme.

Clapper said it is an “interesting pattern. I will put it that way."

The wife of one of Putin’s most prominent critics, activist and journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza, said her husband had been poisoned again, after experiencing kidney failure and being put in a medically induced coma in February. She reportedly said the doctors diagnosed him with an “acute poisoning by an unidentified substance."

President Trump, during an interview in early February with then-Fox News anchor Bill O"Reilly, defended Putin and objected to him being called "a killer."

“We have a lot of killers,” Trump said at the time. “You think our country is so innocent?”

Of course, Clapper was not done, he had plenty more to say on Trump...

"I think in many ways our institutions are under assault both externally -- and that"s the big news here is the Russian interference in our election system -- and I think as well our institutions are under assault internally,"

"The founding fathers, in their genius, created a system of three co-equal branches of government and a built-in system of checks and balances," Clapper said. "I feel as though that is under assault and is eroding."

Presumably Clapper was upset at being the man Trump pointed to as clarifying the lack of evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion?

McMaster Responds To Wapo: "I Was In The Room, It Didn't Happen. The Story Is False"

Following the latest provocative story from the Washington Post earlier suggesting that Trump shared "highly classified information" with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during their White House meeting last week, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster just spoke to reporters outside the White House to offer an unequivocal denial of the story: "The story that came out tonight as reported is false. I was in the room.  It didn"t happen." 

"There is nothing that the President takes more seriously than the security of the American people.

The story that came out tonight as reported is false.  The president the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.

At no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.  And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.

Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remembered the meeting the same way and have said so.  Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.

I was in the room.  It didn"t happen." 

National Sec. Adviser H.R. McMaster: "The story that came out tonight as reported is false" https://t.co/EAHxTuWill https://t.co/dEJfwYdqoz

— CNN (@CNN) May 15, 2017

Of course, McMaster is clearly working for the Russians and we"re almost certain that anonymous sources will approach Wapo with evidence of such at some point in the very near future.

Russia Has Withdrawn Half Of Its Fighter Jet Group From Syria

In an unexpected development, the Russian General Staff announced on Wednesday that it has withdrawn almost half of its air grouping originally based at the Hmeymim facility in Syria.  Cited by Sputnik, the chief of the Main Operational Directorate Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi said at the VI Moscow Conference on International Security that "the number of terrorist units has decreased, which allowed us to
withdraw almost half of the aircraft based at the Hmeymim airbase."

Rudskoi said that the Russian air group never exceeded 35 aircraft between November 10, 2016 and January 10, 2017. He also said that Russia is operating about 80 drones in Syria, and stressed that an analysis has shown that the Russian Aerospace Forces have conducted four times more airstrikes than the US-led coalition despite having fewer aircraft.

"Comparative analysis of the results of activities by Russian aircraft and the international coalition"s aircraft in Syria shows that having far fewer aircraft, the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out three times more combat sorties and made four times more missile and bomb strikes," Rudskoi said.

Since September 2015, the Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out constant airstrikes in Syria targeting terrorist positions at the request of Syrian President Bashar Assad. In March 2016, the biggest part of Russian air forces left Syria in line with the decision of Russian President Vladimir Putin, following successful task fulfillment.

Predictably, there was no discussion if the recent air strike by the US was a factor in the decision to repatriate half of the Russian air support from Syria, neither was there a comment on whether the recent report by Iran"s FARS that Russia was considering deploying ground troops to Syria was accurate.

Syria Moves Most Of Its Combat Planes Next To Russian Base For Protection

The enemy of my enemy has safe air bases.

In a move which either suggests that i) Syria is preparing for more US attacks, ii) really likes Russians, or iii) is simply doing the logical thing, CNN reports that the Syrian government has moved most of its combat planes to a base located in close proximity to the Russian air base in Syria to protect them from potential US strikes. The movement of the aircraft to the air base at Bassel Al-Assad International Airport began shortly after the US"s April 6 Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Sharat air base, which destroyed some 24 Syrian warplanes.

After the move, the majority of Syria"s operation airforce will be located next to Russia"s Khmeimim Air Base, where the majority of Russian air forces helping ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad"s regime are based, in Latakia, Syria.

The Khmeimim base, along with a naval facility in Tartus, is one of the two of the primary Russian military installations in Syria, and has in the past been shown to be protected by one or more Russian anti-aircraft missile installations.

While the motive behind the move is obvious, CNN nonetheless points it out:"The regime in Damascus may be calculating that the US would be more reluctant to strike in close proximity to the Russian troops and their anti-aircraft systems."

Two weeks ago, the US warned Moscow via a pre-established channel in advance of its April 6 cruise missile strike in order to prevent any Russian casualties. So with Russian military assets clearly on the "do not target" list, it was only logical that Assad would do everything to move as many of his own assets as close to the Russian air base as possible.

It was unclear what the current state is of the transported Syrian airplanes. Shortly after the April 6 strike, US defense officials said that the its retaliatory strike incapacitated some 20% of the regime"s operational fixed-wing aircraft, making the preservation of the remaining planes of the utmost importance to Damascus.

"The Syrian Air Force is not in good shape. It"s been worn down by years of combat plus some ... significant maintenance problems," Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon.
The US has not ruled out additional strikes against the regime should it opt to use chemical weapons in the future. "The Syrian regime should think long and hard before it again acts so recklessly in violation of international law against the use of chemical weapons," Mattis said, later adding: "If they use chemical weapons, they are going to pay a very, very stiff price."

Unless, of course, as Oliver Stone most recently suggested, it wasn"t Syria using chemical weapons and instead the attack was as Putin said last week, a false flag. Which begs the question: should another "chemical attack" or "false flag" take place, will the US dare to target Syrian assets in dangerous proximity to the Russian base, or will it simply decide to aim for Assad"s palace. After all, by now it is clear to most that the US goal, from the beginning, has been regime change.

Russian Warship Steaming Toward U.S Destroyers Off Syria Coast

Early this morning we reported that as part of its response to the Syrian attack, in addition to suspending communication with U.S. forces designed to stop planes colliding over Syria, the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich would be deployed to the Tartus naval base in Syria. The Russian Black Sea Fleet’s frigate The Admiral Grigorovich, currently on a routine voyage, would enter the Mediterranean later on Friday, a military-diplomatic source in Moscow told TASS, adding that the ship would make a stop at the logistics base in Syria’s port of Tartus.

Russia wasted no time, and as FN reports, moments ago, the Russian frigate, Admiral Grigorovich RFS-494, crossed through the Bosphorus Strait “a few hours ago” from the Black Sea, according to a U.S. defense official. 

BREAKING:Russia Admiral Grigorovich-class frigate armed w/ cruise missiles about to enter the Mediterranean heading to naval base in Tartus pic.twitter.com/LTU5fGjMy5

— Maxim A. Suchkov (@Max_A_Suchkov) April 7, 2017

The Russian warship is now in the eastern Mediterranean steaming in the direction of the U.S. warships. The Admiral Grigorovich is armed with advanced Kalibr cruise missiles. 

According to the official version, the frigate was bound for the Syrian port of Tartus on a routine voyage, the Russian news agency TASS reported Friday, citing a military-diplomatic source.

"The Russian ship armed with cruise missiles Kalibr will visit the logistics base in Tartus, Syria," the source said, according to TASS. The ship was currently near the Black Sea straits, Tass reported.  The ship left on a voyage after stopping at Novorossiisk for supplies and taking part in a joint exercise with Turkish ships in the Black Sea.

Meanwhile, Fox News adds that one of the American destroyers that launched the missiles into Syria started heading to an undisclosed location to rearm.

Another Senior Russian Official Has Died

Since the day of Donald Trump"s election, high-ranking Russian officials have been dropping like flies and today"s reports that a top official of Russia"s space agency has been found dead brings the total to eight.

As we noted previously, six Russian diplomats have died in the last 3 months - all but one died on foreign soil. Some were shot, while other causes of death are unknown. Note that a few deaths have been labeled "heart attacks" or "brief illnesses."

1. You probably remember Russia"s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov — he was assassinated by a police officer at a photo exhibit in Ankara on December 19.

2. On the same day, another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. The gun was found under the bathroom sink but the circumstances of the death were under investigation. Polshikov served as a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Foreign Ministry.

3. Russia"s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York this past week. Churkin was rushed to the hospital from his office at Russia"s UN mission. Initial reports said he suffered a heart attack, and the medical examiner is investigating the death, according to CBS.

4. Russia"s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after a "brief illness January 27, which The Hindu said he had been suffering from for a few weeks.

5. Russian Consul in Athens, Greece, Andrei Malanin, was found dead in his apartment January 9. A Greek police official said there was "no evidence of a break-in." But Malanin lived on a heavily guarded street. The cause of death needed further investigation, per an AFP report. Malanin served during a time of easing relations between Greece and Russia when Greece was increasingly critiqued by the EU and NATO.

6. Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping draft the Trump dossier, was found dead in the back of his car December 26, according to The Telegraph. Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned Rosneft.

If we go back further than 3 months...

7. On the morning of U.S. Election Day, Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov was found unconscious at the Russian Consulate in New York and died on the scene. Initial reports said Krivov fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. BuzzFeed reports Krivov may have been a Consular Duty Commander, which would have put him in charge of preventing sabotage or espionage.

8. In November 2015, a senior adviser to Putin, Mikhail Lesin, who was also the founder of the media company RT, was found dead in a Washington hotel room according to the NYT. The Russian media said it was a "heart attack," but the medical examiner said it was "blunt force injuries."

9. If you go back a few months prior in September 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s driver was killed too in a freak car accident while driving the Russian President’s official black BMW  to add to the insanity.

If you include these three additional deaths that’s a total of nine Russian officials that have died over the past 2 years... until today...

As AP reports, a top official of Russia"s space agency has been found dead in a prison where he was being held on charges of embezzlement.

A spokeswoman for Russia"s Investigative Committee, Yulia Ivanova, told the state news agency RIA Novosti that the 11 other people in Vladimir Evdokimov"s cell were being questioned.

Investigators found two stab wounds on Evdokimov"s body, but no determination had been made of whether they were self-inflicted.

Evdokimov, 56, was the executive director for quality control at Roscosmos, the country"s spaceflight and research agency.

He was jailed in December on charges of embezzling 200 million rubles ($3.1 million) from the MiG aerospace company.

So, while motive is unclear in all of these cases, that brings the total number of dead Russian officials in the past two years to ten. Probably nothing...

British Foreign Secretary Admits "No Evidence" Found Of Russian Disruption Of UK Democracy

Echoing the numerous initial comments from various US intelligence probes, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told British ITV that "we have no evidence the Russians are actually involved in trying to undermine our democratic processes..."

However, careful to toe the propaganda line, Johnson quickly retorted..."But what we do have is plenty of evidence that the Russians are capable of doing that,” he insisted adding that Russians “have been up to all sorts of dirty tricks."

.@BorisJohnson reflects on the conduct of Russia ahead of his visit to meet Sergey Lavrov #Peston pic.twitter.com/SdbHT5FJFS

— Peston on Sunday (@pestononsunday) March 12, 2017

Remarkably, Johnson made these statements just weeks before his visit to Russia, during which he will meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. His visit would be the first made to Moscow by a British Foreign Minister in five years. When asked what the UK’s approach to Russia should be now, he said that Britain needs to take “a twin-track approach” towards Russia. “As the prime minister has said, we’ve got to engage but we have to beware,” Johnson stated.

As RT reports, despite constantly saying there was solid proof that Russia had meddled in the affairs of other countries, such as by bringing down French TV stations and interfering in US elections, he failed to provide any concrete evidence to back his accusations.

Johnson also implicated that Russia was involved in the situation in Montenegro, where a group of Serbian nationalists was arrested in October of 2016 suspected of planning to carry out armed attacks on the day of the country’s parliamentary elections.

The British Telegraph newspaper later reported that the group was sponsored and controlled by the Russian intelligence officers and had actually tried to stage a coup targeting its Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic with “the support and blessing” of Moscow.

However, the paper’s report turned out to be based mostly on the assumptions of unidentified sources and Montenegrin Special Prosecutor for Organized Crime, Milivoje Katnic, confirmed that, despite the participation of several suspected “nationalists from Russia,” there was no “evidence that the state of Russia is involved in any sense.”

In the meantime, Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, expressed hope that Johnson’s visit will contribute to the resumption of a pragmatic dialogue between the two countries based on mutual respect, the Sunday Express reported. While the ambassador admitted that the British foreign secretary’s visit would come “at a time when our official bilateral relationship is at the lowest point after the Cold War,” he said that Russia hopes “it [the visit] means that our British partners are interested in resumption of political dialogue.” At the same time, Yakovenko also said Russia does not “need a cozy relationship with Britain, just one based on mutual respect and national interest.”

“The rhetoric does matter, but without a positive agenda, it becomes an end in itself,” he added. The ambassador also reiterated that “Russia poses a threat to no one, including the Baltic States” and has no intention of influencing the political processes of any foreign countries. “It sounds ridiculous that Russia could influence the Western nations’ domestic affairs. Certainly, we have our views to air on various issues of public interest,” he said.

The ambassador also criticized Johnson’s most recent statements, saying that the anti-Russian campaign in the UK “should be toned down, and whatever evidence there is to support accusations against Russia, it should be made public.”

Pentagon Chief Rejects Military Cooperation With Russia

One day after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told US NATO allies they will have to pay up and meet their mandatory quota of 2% of GDP (which only 5 nations currently satisfy, among them the US and Greece), on Thursday the Pentagon"s new chief also had some bad news for Russia when he rejected any kind of military collaboration with Russia, despite previous calls by Putin for the West to work with his country on Syria and other issues.

Quoted by the WSJ, Mattis said at NATO"s Brussels headquarters that “We are not in a position right now to collaborate on a military level” adding that  “our political leaders will engage and try to find common ground or a way forward where Russia, living up to its commitments, will return to a partnership of sorts, here with NATO.” Prior to the meeting, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu expressed hope for cooperation but warned that “attempts to build a dialogue from a position of strength with regard to Russia are hopeless.”

Mattis’s remarks came after Mr. Putin made a plea for the alliance and other nations to cooperate with Russia. “It’s in everyone’s interest to resume dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the United States and other members of NATO,” said Mr. Putin, addressing Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) on Thursday.

The sudden chill in US-Russian relations is understandable: the Trump administration remains in turmoil over questions about the extent of Trump administration contacts with Russia, and tensions have been rising.

Elsewhere, as reported previously, the top US general, Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is scheduled to meet his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, in Baku, Azerbaijan. The meeting will mark the highest-level military contact between Washington and Moscow since 2014. Shoigu added that the Russians “await clarification of the position of the Pentagon” at the Baku meeting.

Of particular interest will be any discussion between the US and Russia on the topic of NATO expansion.

NATO has been pursuing a multinational force on its eastern flank as a deterrent over Moscow’s aggression in the region. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the allies didn’t want to isolate Russia but still wanted “a firm predictable approach, including credible deterrence.”

He announced that alliance defense ministers had approved a plan to bolster its naval forces in the Black Sea, which is bordered by Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and other countries, and would improve military intelligence in the area.

Mr. Stoltenberg said the alliance’s standing maritime fleets would make more frequent visits to the Black Sea and step up military exercises. “It will be measured, it will be defensive and it will be no way aim at provoking a conflict or escalating tensions,” Mr. Stoltenberg said.

Understandably, Russia has taken frequent issue with operations in the Black Sea by naval vessels from nations that don’t border it.

Also of note, Russia’s military intervention in Syria on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in late 2015 also caused friction between the U.S. and Russia, although both sides agreed to establish military communication to reduce the risk of incidents in the skies over Syria. As the WSJ further adds, "The meeting in Baku is expected to focus on a proposal pushed by senior uniformed officers at the Pentagon to improve that system. Gen. Dunford has pushed the plan, which would elevate the military contacts to a the three-star general level. Currently, the two militaries communicate by phone at the colonels’ level to share information about where each is operating.

The plan has been floated for months, but went nowhere under Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who was wary of higher level coordination with the Russian military. The proposal wouldn"t likely mean the U.S. and Russian militaries would coordinate with each other or share intelligence. The system is thought to have worked well, but has had some problems. The U.S. mistakenly hit Syrian forces in Deir Ezzour rather than Islamic State targets after a Russian colonel couldn"t immediately locate his American counterpart on the phone.

With US-Russian relations about to be scrutinized in the US, keep a close eye on the diplomatic exchanges between the two countries for hints on whether another chill is about to fall between D.C. and Moscow.

Trump Expects Putin To "Return" Crimea To Ukraine

With every passing day, it appears that many of the anticipated foreign policy changes under the new administration may end up being nothing but smoke and mirrors. First, it was the middle east, where despite campaign promises of pulling back US troops, Trump is instead considering adding to US deployments to reinforce what he plans to be Syrian "safe zones."

Then, during today"s Sean Spicer press conference, the White House spokesman had that President Trump has been "tough" on Russia and expects Moscow to “return” the Crimea peninsula to Ukraine, the White House spokesman told reporters. Addressing the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – hounded by the media over his contacts with Russian diplomats prior to Trump’s inauguration – Spicer pointed out that Russia “seized” Crimea under the Obama administration and that the Trump-appointed ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has “strongly denounced the Russian occupation.”

"President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to de-escalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea," Spicer said at a daily news briefing. "At the same time, he fully expects to and wants to get along with Russia."

That may be problematic if indeed Trump plans to perpetuate the policies of his predecessor. On February, the Nikki Haley said at the UN Security Council that “Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine."

Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin responded by citing the US Constitution and pointing out that Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, after the US-backed coup in February 2014 overthrew the elected government in Kiev.

It is in the national and economic interest of the US to have a good relationship with Russia, Spicer explained, but said that Haley “speaks for the president” on the matter of Crimea.

Flynn’s resignation on Monday followed several weeks of media furor over his telephone conversation with the Russian ambassador to the US in December, after the outgoing Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two properties. Moscow chose not to respond in kind. “There is nothing that General Flynn did that was a violation of any sort,” Spicer said, explaining that the adviser was asked to resign because of Trump’s “eroding trust” after Flynn’s accounts of the conversation to administration officials did not square with what was leaked to the media.

However, with Democrats smelling blood in the water over the sensitive topic of the Trump administration"s alleged proximity to Russia, and even Republicans now calling for an exhaustive probe into Trump-Russia relations, recent events may have well set back any potential thaw in Russia-US relations indefinitely.

Can Trump And Putin Avert Cold War II?

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland’s Eastern shore.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children to the Christmas and New Year’s party at the Kremlin.

“A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger,” reads Proverbs 15:1. “Great move,” tweeted President-elect Trump, “I always knew he was very smart!”

Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.

Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being “Putin’s puppet,” lost.

Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?

That question raises several others.

Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony, 25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?

Comes the retort: Putin has put nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

True, but who began this escalation?

George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon’s ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army withdrew.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, says John McCain.

Russia did, after Georgia invaded its breakaway province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. Putin threw the Georgians out, occupied part of Georgia, and then withdrew.

Russia, it is said, has supported Syria’s Bashar Assad, bombed U.S.-backed rebels and participated in the Aleppo slaughter.

But who started this horrific civil war in Syria?

Was it not our Gulf allies, Turkey, and ourselves by backing an insurgency against a regime that had been Russia’s ally for decades and hosts Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean?

Did we not exercise the same right of assisting a beleaguered ally when we sent 500,000 troops to aid South Vietnam against a Viet Cong insurgency supported by Hanoi, Beijing and Moscow?

That’s what allies do.

The unanswered question: Why did we support the overthrow of Assad when the likely successor regime would have been Islamist and murderously hostile toward Syria’s Christians?

Russia, we are told, committed aggression against Ukraine by invading Crimea.

But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

Crimea had belonged to Moscow from the time of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, and the Russia-Ukraine relationship dates back to before the Crusades. When did this become a vital interest of the USA?

As for Putin’s backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

Has Putin no right to be concerned about his lost countrymen?

Unlike America’s elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

Moreover, the populist, nationalist, anti-EU and secessionist parties in Europe have arisen on their own and are advancing through free elections.

Sovereignty, independence, a restoration of national identity, all appear to be more important to these parties than what they regard as an excessively supervised existence in the soft-dictatorship of the EU.

In the Cold War between Communism and capitalism, the single-party dictatorship and the free society, we prevailed.

But in the new struggle we are in, the ethnonational state seems ascendant over the multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual “universal nation” whose avatar is Barack Obama.

Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his.

The worst mistake President Trump could make would be to let the Russophobes grab the wheel and steer us into another Cold War that could be as costly as the first, and might not end as peacefully.

Reagan’s outstretched hand to Gorbachev worked. Trump has nothing to lose by extending his to Vladimir Putin, and much perhaps to win.