NATO General Threatens "Consequences" For Turkey Buying Russian Air Defense System

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

In looking to upgrade their air defense system, Turkey had a choice: buying the advanced Russian S-400 systems, or more expensive, US-made alternatives. Turkey chose to buy Russian, and NATO isn’t happy.

While NATO was initially just complaining the S-400 was incompatible with their own systems, top NATO General Petr Pavel told reporters this week that Turkey is likely to be punished by the alliance for not buying American.

“The principal of sovereignty obviously exists in acquisition of defense equipment, but the same way that nations are sovereign in making their decision, they are also sovereign in facing the consequences of that decision,” Pavel insisted.

Pavel dismissed reporter questions about the Turkish government’s recent anti-democracy moves, insisting nobody is perfect.

“When it comes to democratic deficits, show me one single nation that is perfect. No one is perfect,” Pavel said.

 

“No one challenges the role of Turkey as an important ally at the very difficult crossroads of challenges to the alliance.”

Apparently the same leeway does not apply for the question of buying American weapons.

The missile deal with Russia “is a clear sign that Turkey is disappointed in the U.S. and Europe,” said Konstantin Makienko, an analyst at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow think-tank.

 

“But until the advance is paid and the assembly begins, we can’t be sure of anything.”

Russia’s S-400, and its predecessor the S-300, have been praised as advanced, cost-effective alternatives to American anti-aircraft systems.

The US is used to having a virtual monopoly on this market, by ensuring that no one buys Russian without facing some very public criticism.

Germany’s Delegation To Russia Signals That Merkel Is Looking For New Allies

By George Friedman of Mauldin Economics

A delegation of executives from major German corporations recently met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Such delegations are not unusual. Sometimes it is routine, sometimes a courtesy. But occasionally, it has significance. In the case of Russia-Germany relations, such meetings are always potentially significant.

Germany’s Unsteady Relations

Two relationships are critical to Germany.

One is with the European Union, the other is with the United States. Neither relationship is stable right now. Brexit, the Spanish crisis, Germany feuding with Poland and the unsolved economic problems of southern Europe are tearing the European Union apart.

The Germans and the EU apparatus claim that none of these threaten the bloc. In fact, almost a decade after 2008, Europe appears to be achieving very modest economic growth. But the Germans know the dangers that lie ahead, even if Brussels does not.

Many of the EU’s problems are political, not economic. (I wrote about the inherent weakness of Europe in my free e-book, The World Explained in Maps, which you can find here)

Poland and Germany have butted heads over the tension between the right to national self-determination and EU rules. This is also what Brexit was about.

Spain is locked in a dispute over the nature of a nation and the right of a region to secede, while the EU considers what role it should play in the domestic matters of a member state. And although southern Europe’s problems are economic, the fact that Europe has eked out minimal growth means neither that such growth is sustainable nor that the growth rate comes close to solving the Continent’s deep structural problems.

As the de facto leader of the EU, Germany has to appear confident while considering the implications of failure.

The German relationship with the United States is unsettled—and not just because of President Donald Trump’s personality.

The strategic and economic situation in Europe has changed dramatically since the early 1990s—when the Soviet Union fell, Germany reunified and the all-important Maastricht treaty was signed—but Germany’s structural relationship with the US has not.

Both are members of NATO, but they have radically different views of its mission and its economics. Germany has the world’s fourth-largest economy, but its financial contribution to NATO doesn’t reflect that.

Then there is Russia. The American policy toward Russia has hardened since the Democratic Party adopted an intense anti-Russia stance following the presidential election—more intense even than that of the Republican Party, which has always been uneasy with Russia.

The Ukraine crisis continues to fester while US troops are deployed in the Baltics, Poland, and Romania. This has widened rifts within the EU. Germany isn’t interested in a second Cold War; Eastern Europe believes it’s already in one.

The Eastern Europeans are increasingly alienated from the Germans on the issue and more closely aligned with the Americans. At a time when German relations with key Eastern European countries are being tested, the added strain of US policy in the region is a threat to German interests.

Germany wants the Russia problem to subside. The US and its Eastern European allies think the way to accomplish that is through confrontation.

An Alternative That Germany Doesn’t Want

Germany’s foreign policy has remained roughly the same since 1991, even as the international reality has changed dramatically. This is forcing Germany toward a decision it doesn’t want to make.

It must consider what happens if the EU continues to disintegrate and if European countries’ foreign policies and politics continue to diverge.

It must consider what happens if the US continues to shape the dynamics of Europe in a way that Germany will have to confront American enemies, or refuse to do so. This isn’t just about Russia—we can see the same issue over Iran.

Germany can’t exist without stable economic partners. It has never been self-sufficient since it reunified. It must explore alternatives.

The most obvious alternative for Germany has always been Russia, either through alliance or conquest.

Germany needs Russian raw materials. It also needs the Russian market to be far more robust than it is so that it can buy more German goods.

But Russia is incapable of rapid economic development without outside help, and with the collapse of oil prices, it needs rapid development to stabilize its economy. Germany needs Russia’s economy to succeed, and what it has to offer Russia is capital, technology, and management.

In exchange, Russia can offer raw materials and a workforce.

An alignment with Russia could settle Eastern Europe in Germany’s orbit. With the way things are going, and given Germany’s alternatives, the Russian option is expensive but potentially very profitable.

But Germany has a problem with Russia. Every previous attempt at alignment or conquest has failed. Building up the Russian economy to create a robust market for German goods would certainly benefit both countries, but it would also shift the balance of power in Europe.

Right now, Germany is militarily weak and economically strong. Russia is moderately powerful militarily and economically weak. An alignment with Germany could dramatically strengthen Russia’s economy, and with it, its military power.

Having moved away from the United States and de-emphasized military power in the rest of the European peninsula, Germany could find itself in its old position: vulnerable to Russian power, but without allies against Russia.

On a Lookout for New Allies

The corporate chiefs’ trip to Russia is not a groundbreaking event, nor does it mark a serious shift in German policy. But it is part of an ongoing process. As the international reality shifts from what Germany needs, Germany must find another path.

In the short term, the United States is vulnerable to a cyclical recession, and hostility toward Germany is increasing in Europe—particularly in Eastern Europe. China is facing internal challenges of its own. There are few other options than Russia, and Russia is historically a most dangerous option for Germany.

Anna Bono: "There's No Future For Africans In Europe"

Via GEFIRA,

An exclusive interview with Anna Bono.

Prof. Anna Bono has been a researcher in African history and institutions at the University of Turin until 2015 after living many years in Africa. She has collaborated as an expert on Africa with a number of Universities and Institutions, including the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and written over 1600 articles, essays and books on topics such as international relations and cooperation with Africa, as well as demographics and migrations.

GEFIRA asked in an exclusive interview the opinion of an expert on Africa about the current situation in Italy, about the “asylum seekers” coming mostly from sub-Saharan countries. Professor Anna Bono recently made headlines in Italy with a book that completely debunks the ongoing narrative of “poor Africans” running away from starvation and knocking on wealthy Europe’s doors through Sicily or other ports of southern Italy.

*  *  *

GEFIRA: Can we identify one of the more specific events as the beginning of the ongoing biblical numbers arriving in Italy?
ANNA BONO: It all started with the removal of Qaddafi. Qaddafi, bound by the 2008 treaty of cooperation with Italy, implemented an effective control of Libyan coasts, thus preventing the departure of migrants from other African countries. The numbers of arrivals of Africans to Italy prior to Qaddafi’s overthrow were manageable; moreover, they were not organized as they are today. It is important to remind Europeans that Libya prior to 2011 was a relatively wealthy and stable country, hosting approximately 1 million foreign workers mostly from sub-Saharan Africa. When the civil war broke out, some of these foreign workers went home, but the majority started to look for ways of crossing over to Italy.

G: Could we define the current demographic growth of Africa as “unsustainable”?
AB: Not necessarily. Africa, remains, after all, the least populated of all continents. The bottom line is all about Africa’s resources. The way these huge natural resources continue to be mismanaged – to say the least – is at the core of every possible discussion about the continent. The economic policies of most African governments fall short of any real accomplishment, with the result that only a fraction of the population receives any benefit, with corruption, deeply ingrained in most African countries, remaining as the chief obstacle to a serious and harmonized growth. Thanks to institutionalized corruption, Africans are literally squandering away their resources. One example: Africa exports oil in huge quantities, but then lacks refineries, and therefore imports refined fuel.

G: Most corrupted countries?
AB: Nigeria certainly stands out. Nigeria is a classic example of corruption as a way of life. Being Africa’s number one country for oil exports and the second African economy (after South Africa), it has huge amounts of wealth that is up for grabs.

G: Can you describe the average African “migrant” arriving in Libya from sub-Saharan countries? We all know all-too well the ongoing narrative: if they go through so much effort and dangers to get to Italy, they must be desperate, running away from war and starvation. But sheer data show us quite a different story.
AB: There is no war in these countries. There is no war in almost any of these countries, such as Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leon, Mali, etc. Yet, these are the countries with the highest numbers of arrivals. The real refugees, the ones running away from wars, are not coming to Italy and the numbers are out there to prove it. The other complete fake narrative is that these young males, aged 18 to 35, are, by African standards, anything but poor.

G: How can you say that?
AB: How can you define an African “poor” when he has paid between 5.000 to 8.000 USD or EUR to make it to Italy? What these young males are doing in reality is an investment, usually with money from their families, to start a better life in Western Europe. The whole story is just as simple as that.

The problem is that they chose the wrong country, although the easiest to get to. Italy has a serious youth unemployment problem that is not going away anytime soon. Official numbers estimate that well over 100.000 Italians in the 18-35 age group leave Italy every year because they simply can’t find a decent job, and then you have well over that number of young African males coming to Italy every year to find what kind of employment?

G: Which leads to another, all-too obvious question. What will all these Africans do, from now on?
AB: Considering that the whole process of being granted – or denied – the status of “refugee” in Italy takes years, they will be an onerous burden on Italy, costing Italian taxpayers billions of euros.

G: Why does this process take years? Is Italian bureaucracy this slow?
AB: When you are granting to any self claiming “asylum seeker” 3 (three) different levels of justice like to any ordinary Italian citizen, (1st degree court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court), is it that difficult to realize that he will spend in Italy, pending these different appeals, a number of years at taxpayers’ expenses?

In the meantime these people have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and given free medical and legal assistance for years to come. This translates into billions of euros that the Italian welfare system has to spend, taking these resources away from the welfare of Italian citizens and legal residents.

G: What is the percentage of those who eventually get refugee status?
AB: The magnitude is one percentage digit. The numbers just tell us that the overwhelming majority do not qualify for any refugee status. In 2015 out of 153.000 arrivals only 3.555 were granted the status. In 2016 out of 181.000 arrivals fewer than 5.000 were recognized as refugees. Numbers are out to tell us there is a complete fake narrative being served on us.

G: And the others? Those who don’t qualify for the refugee status?
AB: They will be served a foglio di via, an official warning that orders the alien, who is at that point illegal, to leave Italy within a certain number of days. To go where? That is quite ineffective, and it does not make any sense, to say the least. It’s like saying to these people: we have come to the conclusion – after years of keeping you here at our own expense – that you should have not been here in the first place, so could you please now go home? Where will these people go? Is it so hard to imagine that they will remain in Italy regardless of this ridiculous warning and they will find ways – legal, or most likely, illegal – to continue living here or to move around Europe trying to survive somehow?

G: But some Italians seem to like or at least tolerate all this scam (because at this point plain evidence shows all this to be nothing but a huge scam). And, as in every scam, there is someone out there reaping a profit.
AB: Of course, the numbers of those involved of what we can now call a well-established industry are not so small. It’s a growing industry which now commands huge numbers, in the billions of euros. And not just in Italy, where the government (read: Italian taxpayers) this year (2017) will spend well over 4.5 billion euros for this industry. I will just give one example outside Italy: Agadez, Niger. This town is practically living off the migrants’ main route to Libya. All these sub-Saharan Africans need all sorts of services en route to Europe, and they are providing this town with a livelihood that otherwise would not come from other sources.

G: Do you see any light at the end of this tunnel? Any hope that a future government of Italy will turn the tide? We all know too well that forced deportation of masses like these would be next to impossible in terms of financial efforts, not to mention that Italy has already a huge debt that shows no signs of improving.
AB: The only way to reduce the arrivals of these masses is for European governments to intervene effectively in Africa, with extensive information that explains in simple terms to young Africans that Europe is not the land of unlimited wealth for all. Until this myth persists in the minds of young Africans, there is simply no hope of preventing them from arriving here only to find themselves without a job, without their families, without knowing anything about our way of life. In short, without a future.

An Angry, "Irritated" Italy Loses Patience With Macron Over Migrants, Libya

One week after the latest Ifop poll showed that French president Macron"s approval rating tumbled by 10 points in his third month, with only Jacques Chirac sliding more from his May 1995 election to July of that year according to Journal du Dimanche...

... the young president"s troubles are spilling outside France"s borders, and as VoA reports, even as Merkel"s political infatuation with Macron grows by the day, Italy is quickly falling out of love with Macron as  irritation with France’s president is mounting in Rome. At the center of the rising tensions is Italy displeasure with how Europe is handling the country"s refugee crisis: tensions have crept into diplomatic relations between France and the government of Paolo Gentiloni, prompted by Macron’s response to Italian pleas for more European assistance with the mainly sub-Saharan migrants crossing the Mediterranean in record numbers and his largely uncoordinated diplomatic intervention in the past week over the Libya crisis.

On Tuesday, Macron oversaw a meeting in Paris of the leaders of two of war-torn Libya’s rival factions to discuss a political power-sharing deal to reunite the fractured north African country.

President Macron meets Italian PM Paolo at the Elysee Palace in Paris, May 21, 2017

Italy is furious that the meeting between the head of the U.N.-backed government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj  - which has failed to assert authority even in the Libyan capital Tripoli - and General Khalifa Haftar - a warlord who largely controls the east of the lawless country - was not coordinated with the Italian government. As a result, Gentiloni’s ministers took the unusual step of openly criticizing the French president this week, voicing frustrations with Macron’s efforts, which they argue distract from a coordinated U.N. and European Union effort to engineer a political deal in Libya between three rival governments and dozens of militias. 

“There are too many open formats in Libya, too many mediators, too many initiatives,” Italy’s foreign minister, Angelino Alfano, told the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

Alfano and other ministers have been dismissive of the progress the Elysee Palace claimed to have made in the search for a deal in Libya. According to the French government, al-Sarraj and Haftar have committed to a cease-fire as well as to a continued political dialogue in an effort to achieve national reconciliation. The Italians also believe that Macron has fallen into a trap set by General Haftar, who has refused to accept the legitimacy of Fayez al-Sarraj’s government. Italian officials complain that the Macron-brokered meeting helps to legitimize Haftar, whom they see as a warlord and a strongman-in-the-making.

Separately, officials in the Italian capital say Italy is far more of a "front-line" state when it comes to Libya and suffers more immediate impact than France when it comes to political developments on the other side of the Mediterranean, which is why they have been infuriate by France"s brash overtures to take the lead on political negotiations with the civil war-torn state, and have also accused Macron of brashness in waiving off Italian objections, arguing he’s being too high-handed.

It isn"t just Italy.

Accusations of Macron"s high-handedness were also echoed in France, on his approach to a range of issues, domestic and foreign, with one retired general, Vincent Desportes, accusing Macron of “juvenile authoritarianism.”

As VoA adds, Macron’s Libya diplomacy is just one irritant in increasingly tension-filled Franco-Italian relations, in which Macron has been also accused of duplicity and hypocrisy in his diplomatic conduct with Italy. In May, after meeting Gentiloni in Paris, Macron announced: “we have not listened enough to Italy’s cry for help on the migration crisis.” But Macron’s position since hasn’t changed much from Francois Hollande, his predecessor in the Elysee Palace, to the Italian government’s rising anger.

Aside from Libya, an even more pressing issue for Italy has been the ongoing pleas for burden-sharing when it comes to the country"s migrant wave, pelase which have so far fallen on deaf ears among other EU nations. Meanwhile, Italy’s refugee centers and shelters have reached their capacity of 200,000. So far this year nearly 100,000 asylum seekers have crossed the Mediterranean from Libya — a 17 percent increase over the same period last year — and with months more of good weather, another 100,000 asylum seekers are likely to land at Italian ports.

Pointing the finger explicitly at Paris, Italy’s deputy foreign minister, Mario Giro, this month complained, “it doesn’t seem like France wants to help us concretely.”

Italy has reason to be angry: French police have been blocking hundreds of migrants on the Italian side of the border at Ventimiglia from entering France; the French government is refusing to allow asylum seekers rescued in the Mediterranean from landing at French ports and, like nearly every other EU country, France hasn’t come anywhere near meeting its quota of migrants as agreed to under a 2015 EU refugee relocation scheme, even as the EU sues to force Poland, Hungary And Czech Republic to accept more refugees.

Adding insult to injury, earlier in July, Macron talked of distinguishing between war refugees and economic migrants, indicating that France won"t admit any asylum-seekers who are just escaping poverty and hunger. But that doesn’t help Italy as it tries to cope with a mounting influx of mainly economic migrants, who, under EU rule, it has little alternative but to admit, at least for processing and to save lives.

Paris has also scorned an Italian proposal for an EU military mission to monitor and interdict migrants along Libya’s southern border. Italians question why a large French military mission in Niger isn"t being used to disrupt migrant trafficking when it is right by the main route being used by smugglers and would-be asylum seekers traveling north.

Last month, the European Parliament’s most senior left-wing politician, Italian Gianni Pittella, launched a scathing attack on Macron after French police frogmarched back into Italy more than 100 migrants who’d crossed into France.

“The situation is shameful. Italy and the Italians are being abandoned, they’re being expected to deal with all these migrants on their own with no support,” he said.

And even as he loses the support of Europe"s periphery, and certainly the nation which recently surpassed Germany as the largest sovereign debtor in Europe, for now Macron"s precarious political stance is propped up - if only in the diplomatic arena - by Angela Merkel"s (so far) unquestioned admiration and support. Should Macron lose that, however, it may be time to start worrying about the next French presidential election.

The Future Of Multicultural Europe: German City With The Most Immigrants Also Has The Most Crime

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

Over the past 20 years, European cities have slowly become more ethnically diverse, as EU governments open their borders to foreign populations. And as this process has taken place, the authorities have been quick to cover up any crimes that have been committed by these populations. For instance, Swedish police are no longer allowed to describe the ethnic background of the criminals they catch, and most notably, the German government and press were desperate to cover up hundreds sexual assaults that occurred in Cologne in 2015.

However, there are certain statistics that can’t be covered up. A government can try to conceal the connection between crimes and specific ethnic groups, but they can’t cover up the overall crime statistics of an entire city. Plus, politically correct governments can’t really hide the ethnic diversity of their cities. That’s something that their progressive sensibilities command them to promote.

Fortunately, sometimes those two factors come together to give us all a good look at the relationship between immigration and crime in Europe, despite the best efforts of European governments to conceal that connection. For example, the German government recently revealed that more than half of the population of Frankfurt has a foreign background, arguably making it the most diverse major city in Germany.

For the first time, more than half of Frankfurt residents now have a migrant background, according to official data from the city’s Office of Statistics and Elections.

Presenting the figures, which show that 51.2 per cent of people living in Frankfurt have a migrant background, the city’s secretary of integration Sylvia Weber said: “We have minorities with relatively large numbers in Frankfurt but no group with a clear majority.”

Representing 13 per cent of the population, Turks are the city’s largest non-German minority, and 61 per cent of residents who were born abroad are citizens of other European Union (EU) countries.

And on top of that, the data reveals that these people aren’t thriving in Germany. 49% of people with foreign backgrounds in Frankfurt live below the poverty line, compared to 23% of native Germans, and they are significantly more likely to be unemployed. But that’s not the real kicker. Frankfurt was a diverse city long before the migrant crisis reached its peak, and even then it had a startling crime rate.

The 2013 national crime figures, which were leaked to Welt newspaper earlier this week, show just under six million crimes were recorded in Germany last year.

When broken down to the number of crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, Frankfurt am Main rates as the most dangerous city in Germany with 16,292 crimes per 100,000 people. Its high ranking was put down to its red light district and the large airport.

Of course if you brought this fact up to most leftists, they would call you a racist. But it has nothing to do with race. The real problem is that Germany hasn’t properly vetted their immigrants, nor have they successfully assimilated them. Germany is inviting people into their country who have no respect for German law, and they aren’t pressuring them to join German culture. And the result is rather predictable. Germany has a large foreign population that is young, jobless, alienated from mainstream culture, and more likely to commit crimes.

What we’re seeing in Frankfurt is the future of Europe, if EU nations continue to celebrate multiculturalism and leave their borders wide open. It will be a divided continent, filled with ethnic enclaves, no-go zones, civil unrest, and crime. If they don’t see the folly of multiculturalism, within a generation every city in Europe will be like Frankfurt, or perhaps even worse.

The EU's Greatest Achievements, According To Europeans

A year on from the UK"s Brexit referendum, Prime Minister Theresa May is set to visit Brussels today and outline her government"s negotiating position on the future rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, a recently released Chatham House-Kantar survey found that freedom to live and work across the EU is considered one of the EU"s top three triumphs by its citizens.

You will find more statistics at Statista

When polled about the EU"s greatest achievements to date, 29 percent of people in the UK said there were none, along with 17 percent in nine other countries.

Peace on the European continent was considered the EU"s greatest achievement by 14 percent of people on the continent and 17 percent in the UK.

'Defense' - The U.S. Military Outspends These Countries Combined

Not long into Trump’s presidency, he announced his plans to increase the country"s defense budget in 2018 by 54 billion dollars. The extra money is seen as necessary in order to "rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it". Whether justified or not, this extra outlay will take the U.S. even further ahead of the rest of the world in terms of outright military spending.

The infographic below shows how the current budget compares to the world"s other top spenders. 

You will find more statistics at Statista

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2016 U.S. defense spending outstripped that of China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined. When it comes to spending as a share of own GDP, the United States" huge output naturally brings them down the rankings somewhat. Of the top outright spenders, Saudi Arabia is way ahead, with an estimated 10 percent.