Tuesday, September 2, 2014

U.S., Allies To Stage Exercises In West Ukraine, Kissinger Explains New World Order

As fighting between the army and Russian-backed rebels rages in eastern Ukraine, preparations are under way near its western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies.
The decision to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 is seen as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine while stopping well short of military intervention in the conflict.
The annual exercise, to take place in the Yavoriv training center near Ukraine's border with Poland, was initially scheduled for July, but was put back because early planning was disrupted by the crisis in the eastern part of the country.
"At the moment, we are still planning for (the exercise) to go ahead," U.S. Navy Captain Gregory Hicks, spokesman for the U.S. Army's European Command said on Tuesday.
NATO stepped up military activity in its eastern member states after Russia's annexation of Crimea in March, and is expected to agree at a summit in Wales this week to create a new rapid reaction force of several thousand troops.
In addition to staging air force exercises, the United States is moving tanks and 600 troops to Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for joint maneuvers in October, replacing a more lightly armed force of paratroopers.
But Rapid Trident will entail the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.
President Barack Obama will visit Estonia on Wednesday to reassure the former Soviet Baltic states of U.S. support, and Estonia's prime minister on Tuesday called for a more visible NATO presence in eastern Europe.
Washington has promised Ukraine $52 million in non-lethal security aid and has already provided combat rations, body armor, radios and other equipment. Pentagon leaders have met with Ukrainian counterparts to discuss a range of cooperation, but, for now, arms supplies have been ruled out.

Eleven commercial jets have reportedly been stolen in recent weeks in Libya, and Western intelligence agencies have begun warning they could be used in terror attacks on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the devastating Osama bin Laden-orchestrated attacks on New York and Washington that left nearly 3,000 dead.

According to a report in the Free Beacon, the jets were taken by Islamist militias in Libya, and reports distributed within the U.S. government “included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack … on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks …”

One official in the report assembled by the highly respected Bill Gertz said, “There are a number of commercial airliners in Libya that are missing. We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes.”

Gertz now is senior editor of the Free Beacon, but he built his career during 27 years as reporter, editor and columnist with the Washington Times. He’s also authored six books and his online biography reveals the state-run Xinhua news agency in 2006 identified him as the No. 1 “anti-China expert” in the world.

His report about the missing jetliners notes authorities have a high level of concern because of the convergence of the cases of missing airplanes and the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

It also is just two years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, a scandal that still is reverberating through the Obama administration and threatening to become a game-changer for the 2014 elections.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in that attack.
The officials quoted by Gertz said U.S. intelligence agencies now are trying to locate all the airplanes belonging to two Libyan airline companies, and they have not confirmed the aircraft theft, which reportedly happened after the takeover by terrorists of Tripoli International Airport in August.

"The state-owned Libyan Airlines fleet until this summer included 14 passenger and cargo jetliners, including seven Airbus 320s, one Airbus 330, two French ATR-42 turboprop aircraft, and four Bombardier CJR-900s,” the report said. “Libyan state-owned Afriqiyah Airways fleet is made up of 13 aircraft, including three Airbus 319s, seven Airbus 320s, two Airbus 330s, and one Airbus 340.”
The report blames Libyan Dawn, one of the terror organizations operating there, for the alleged thefts in late August.

As awareness grows of the international establishment’s globalist plotting against liberty and national sovereignty, problems on the road toward a “New World Order” are becoming increasingly obvious, and opposition is surging in tandem. Changes in strategy may be forthcoming as a result. Still, as a recent “analysis” by establishment spokesman Henry Kissinger (shown) makes clear, the powerful forces of globalism and totalitarianism have no intention of backing down from their plot to impose their “New World Order” on humanity.   

Former Secretary of State and national security adviser Kissinger — a key front man for a powerful movement aiming to impose what he and other globalists refer to as a “New World Order” — recently outlined some of the establishment’s concerns. In a piece published on August 29 in the Wall Street Journal, headlined “Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order,” the prominent foreign policy Machiavellian also proposed the acceleration of efforts to impose global governance on humanity.  
Adapted from a soon-to-be-released book on the subject of “World Order,” Kissinger’s analysis purports to identify various speed bumps on the road toward the globalist vision of planetary government. It then offers some policy prescriptions to overcome them, buried between the lines of unexciting and opaque writing. And it warns about what may befall the world if humanity refuses to submit to the global order pushed by Kissinger and company.

“The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis,” argued the globalist apparatchik. As evidence, he cited theplanned collapse of Libya after being “liberated” by the United Nations and Obama; the Islamic State’s efforts to impose a “caliphate” in the Middle East (without mentioning the crucial role played by the U.S. government and its allies in creating the threat to begin with); and alleged tensions between Russia and the West. Again without mentioning the U.S. government or his own role in the trends, Kissinger also points to “a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination.
One of the key problems, Kissinger’s analysis falsely suggests, is that many of the world’s ruling governments and dictatorships never fully embraced the globalist “New World Order” scheming pushed by the Western establishment. “Vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order,” he wrote. In reality, as The New American and countless scholars have documented, even the regimes he implies are hostile to the Western establishment’s vision of “world order” are largely the product of that same establishment — including the brutal regime ruling mainland China.
They all seem to be largely on the same page, too. Just this summer, for example, the Communist Chinese dictatorship and more than 130 Third World regimes in the G77 signed a declaration calling for what they termed a “New World Order to Live Well.” While taking shots at Western governments for not re-distributing enough taxpayer wealth to their regimes, the massive screed outlines essentially the same vision of a “New World Order” pushed openly by Western globalists such as Kissinger. Even UN boss Ban Ki-moon joined the festivities in Bolivia and celebrated the declaration and the renewed Third World push for the world order, complete with global governance and regional regimes under the UN itself.      

“The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point,” Kissinger continued, citing, firstly, challenges to the “nature of the state.” His first example is the globalist-orchestrated attack on national sovereignty that has essentially imposed a transnational, unelected, unaccountable regime on the formerly independent peoples of Europe — without even a semblance of public consent. Kissinger, though, frames the top-down attack in a different light. “Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power,” he claims, giving the false impression that “Europe,” rather than the establishment ruling over it, was behind the radical scheme.
Now, however, Kissinger implies without saying it directly, that the controversial European Union must usurp even more power, wealth, and liberty from the peoples and formerly sovereign nations its unelected bureaucrats rule from Brussels. “It is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order,” the establishment operative declared. “And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders.” In other words, turn the EU into a true “state” — despite the fact that Europeans have repeatedly rejected such machinations — or face various crises and horrors.

“The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state,” Kissinger complained. “The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.” In other words, globalists are worried that the public backlash — or “political reaction,” as Kissinger put it — to the “international order” created partly by Kissinger and his radical comrades is growing and must be dealt with.

Using opaque language, Kissinger also essentially spelled out the globalist road map going forward: Rather than creating a global government all at once, dividing up the world’s peoples and nations into various “regions” ruled by regional regimes must come first. “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” he explains.

As readers of this magazine know well, the trends are already obvious. In Europe, the EU now totally dominates policymaking. In North America, globalists are openly boasting that, using NAFTA as the foundation, a new regional regime is being empowered that will end U.S. sovereignty and independence. In Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and worldwide, the same phenomenon is taking place in full public view. Consider the African Union and the Union of South American States, for example. Only the end-game remains concealed from full public view — and just barely.

“You really have to read between the lines to understand what Dr. Kissinger is saying,” explained analyst Anthony Wile at the market-oriented Daily Bell, which specializes in reading between the lines and exposing globalist memes. “Dr. Kissinger and his backers want more comprehensive global government. Some of the chaos in the world today is certainly due to THEIR actions and their determination to create or sustain warfare in troubled regions of the world. Kissinger is being disingenuous by not admitting to that. He is also being disingenuous by not being clear about the seeming remedy: Reducing or eliminating parts of the [U.S.] Constitution (formally or not), that don't ‘fit’ with the political systems of other regions.”

The end game, Wile suggests, is summarized in Kissinger’s call for “international rules,” which, of course, would necessarily require international rulers. The other key point is Kissinger’s urging the “United States” to reflect upon its “celebration of universal principles” while paring those “with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security.” Wile believes that is a call to further shred what remains of Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to make an eventual global merger with the rest of the world more seamless.

Indeed, as the globalists continue to centralize, the public backlash is becoming increasingly fierce. In Europe, for example, recent elections to the European pseudo-Parliament delivered massive victories to anti-EU parties in France, the United Kingdom, and other key nations despite relentless globalist propaganda and fear-mongering. Meanwhile, around the world, secession fever — as contrasted with globalist efforts to further centralize power — is raging with increasing ferocity. Kissinger’s latest writings offer important insight into the plans of the establishment to deal with it all. Regionalization seems to be the chosen mechanism, for now. 
Americans who support individual liberty, biblical Christianity, national independence, free markets, the Constitution, and other traditional U.S. values ought to study Kissinger’s words carefully. The “New World Order” and the “regions” he and his fellow globalists are pushing are not a new idea — and for the overwhelming majority of humanity, its fruits have been and will be disaster.

Ukraine Escalation

A WEEK ago the prospect of nuclear war was a dim memory. Now, Russian President Vladmir Putin has put the nightmare firmly back on the agenda in a thinly veiled threat to the west to “back off” over Ukraine.
This morning, Prime Minister Tony Abbott labelled Russia’s escalating and “open” invasion into Ukraine as “war”.
But he was not only person using fighting words. At a youth forum on Friday, Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threat was simple.
“I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words.”
It’s the first time in more than 25 years that Moscow has raised the spectre of nuclear war. The difference this time is that its tanks are already pouring over its western borders.

“A great war arrived at our doorstep, the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II,” Ukraine’s Defence Minister Valeriy Geletey wrote on Facebook overnight, warning of “tens of thousands of deaths”.
Putin appears to agree.
Italian newspaper La Repubblica reports Putin has told the outgoing European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: “If I want, I take Kiev in two weeks.”
NATO is taking the war of words seriously: This week it will discuss the creation of a “rapid response” military force tasked with being ready to instantly respond to any invasion of any member state.
Referring to eastern Ukraine as “New Russia”, Putin’s pointed remarks sent a clear message to a hesitant NATO and United States: Back off.
“We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (opponents) should be aware … it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict.”
Mr Putin said he did not want to engage in any large-scale conflicts. “We do not want it and aren’t going to do it,” Putin reportedly said.

Itar-Tass, however, quoted him as adding Russia was “strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces”.
Overnight, European Commission President Barroso, in a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko yesterday, was unusually blunt in expressing his fears.
“We may see a situation where we reach the point of no return,” Barroso said. “If the escalation of the conflict continues, this point of no return can come.”
A major Ukrainian airport has fallen to Russian tanks, trucks and armoured vehicles which have been observed crossing its borders from Russia by western media. Pictures have been flooding social media claiming to show tanks and vehicles bearing Russian insignia.
Loyalist Ukrainian forces are now urgently digging in around cities along its Baltic coast as Russia appears determined to seize a “land bridge” between its territory and the already captured Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea.
The United States there are 1000 Russians soldiers currently fighting in Ukraine. British sources say up to 5000. AFP reports a Russian mother’s lobby group as estimating up to 15,000 of their sons and husbands have “gone incommunicado” while on military exercises near Ukraine in the past two months.

The death of about 200 Russian troops — and their funerals back on Russian soil — has been yet another sign of the game of denial being employed by Moscow.
It’s a game that has cost Russia all credibility.
The White House at the weekend the reality was that Russian troops were inside Ukraine and fighting Ukrainian military forces.

Two of the EU’s new top officials - Donald Tusk and Federica Mogherini - have spoken out against Russia’s “war” on Ukraine.
Tusk, the Polish PM, who is to take over as EU Council head in December, said at a WWII commemoration in Westerplatte, on the Baltic Sea coast, on Monday (1 September) that Russia’s actions merit a tough Nato response.
“[The phrase] ‘No more war’ can no longer be the manifesto of the weak and helpless, an expression of the illusion that around us there are no people and no countries who want to use force and warfare as a means of pursuing their political goals”, he noted.
“Today, looking at the tragedy of the Ukrainians, looking at the war, because we have to use that word, we know, that September 1939 cannot be repeated”.
The Battle of Westerplatte marked the start of Germany and Russia’s invasion of Poland 75 years ago.
Tusk got the EU post last weekend despite being an advocate of strong sanctions on Russia.
He spoke ahead of a Nato summit this week which is to see the creation of a “rapid reaction force” to counter potential Russian aggression against the alliance’s eastern members.
Italian foreign minister Mogherini, who is to become the new EU foreign policy chief in November and who is considered Russia-friendly, also criticised Moscow on Monday.
She told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that EU sanctions are hurting the Russian economy and that “the Kremlin is acting against the interests of its people”.
She also accused Russian leader Vladimir Putin of not sticking to his promises.
"Putin has never respected the commitments he made in several situations, in Geneva, in Normandy, in Berlin. He wasted the chance to turn things around by influencing the separatists after the shooting down of the Malaysian airplane. The distance between commitments and concrete action has been enormous”.
The comments were echoed by German chancellor Angela Merkel.
She told a press conference in Berlin that tit-for-tat EU-Russia sanctions are hurting the German economy. But she added: “I have to say there is also an impact when you are allowed to move borders in Europe and attack other countries with your troops … accepting Russia's behavior is not an option”.
EU leaders last weekend gave Putin one week to stop hostilities in Ukraine or face new punitive measures, which, according to Reuters, could include a ban on European banks’ buying of Russian state bonds.

Quiet, pragmatic, tenacious - some compare Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister and newly-chosen EU Council chief, to German chancellor Angela Merkel. But unlike her, he has “given up” on Moscow, with Russia relations set to make or break his EU tenure.
Tusk will take over the EU baton from Belgium’s Herman Van Rompuy on 1 December.
He might stay for two and a half years or for five. But his fellow centre-right leaders have refused to give the job, a priori, to the centre left in 2017.
Opinion is divided on how he got the post.
For some, such as Charles Grant, the director of the London-based think tank, the Centre for European Reform (CER), the EU appointed a Pole as “a signal to Russia” it will not tolerate war-mongering in the east.

When Tusk took up the EU job on Saturday, he said he has three priorities: to bring an eastern European “sensitivity” to Russia relations; to stop the UK from leaving; and to stop divisions between eurozone and non-eurozone states getting bigger.
His first point was an understatement.
“The main expectation in Poland is that Tusk will make EU policy toward the east … represent the interests of central Europeans”, another Pism analyst, Sebastian Plocennik, said.
“Tusk’s appointment only has meaning if he can persuade member states to push forward with a much stronger European foreign and defence policy … This is Poland’s chance and he can’t blow it,” Carnegie’s Dempsey added.

“His [Tusk’s] approach to Russia is very different from Germany. The German approach is to find scope for compromise, to avoid confrontation. Tusk has given up on that. He doesn’t believe that by being softer and taking a step backward, we can accommodate Russian concerns”, Zaborowski noted.

Nato is to form a 4,000-strong spearhead force designed to go into action in 48 hours in response to Russian intervention in Ukraine. Stockpiles of military equipment will be stored at bases in Eastern Europe for the troops to use when they go into operation.

The mission, which is expected to have a sizeable British contingent, is due to be unveiled at the Nato summit in Wales later this week. It will include special forces, air, naval and intelligence detachments which will deploy alongside the soldiers of the host nation against an outside threat.

The Alliance has not named Russia as the threat against whom the measures are being taken and has stressed that it  can be deployed anywhere in the world. But it will be working alongside the Readiness Action Plan which will have bases, it is believed, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

The deployment is certain to be seen as provocative by the Kremlin. Under the 1997 Founding Act, which was viewed as ending the Cold War, Nato pledged to Boris Yeltsin’s government that it would not have a permanent troop presence in any of the former Warsaw Pact states. Nato insists that the bases do not break the pact as they are not permanent, but they will be there “for as long as it takes”. A senior official stated: “We have been through this thoroughly, taken extensive legal advice, and this is not in breach of the Act. There will not be permanent presence in these bases, there will not, for example, be personnel stationed there with their families.”

The force is part of a raft of measures being taken by Nato to sharpen up its reaction since the Ukraine crisis began in February. Since then, Crimea has been annexed by Vladimir Putin’s government and separatist forces, with Russian backing, are engaged in an increasingly violent civil war in the east of the country.

Moscow is to review its military doctrine, a move that is caused by expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe, problems of missile defense and the crisis situation in neighboring Ukraine, says an official from the Russia’s Security Council.
“I have no doubts that the issue of drawing of military infrastructure of NATO member-countries to the borders of our country, including via enlargement, will remain one of the external military threats for the Russian Federation,” Mikhail Popov, deputy secretary of the Security Council said in an interview to RIA Novosti.
All NATO’s actions show that both the US and NATO are trying to escalate a deterioration of relations with Russia, he added.
“We consider that defining factor in [Moscow’s] relations with NATO will remain the unacceptability for Russia of the expansion plans of alliance’s military infrastructure to our borders, including via enlargement,” he stated.
Establishing and deploying of strategic missile defense systems which are undermining the global stability, as well as bringing the weapons into space, will also remain major military threats for Russia, he added.
“The USA wants to strengthen its troops in Baltic States. [They] have already decided to transfer its heavy weapons and military equipment, including tanks and armored infantry vehicles, to Estonia. And all this next to Russia’s border.”

Alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping Washington, and the specter of a new Cold War, U.S. intelligence veterans one of whom is none other than William Binney, the former senior NSA crypto-mathematician who back in March 2012 blew the whistle on the NSA's spying programs more than a year before Edward Snowden, took the unusual step of sending the following memo dated August 30 to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian "invasion."
Via AntiWar and ConsortiumNews, highlights ours
MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO

We the undersigned are longtime veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian "invasion" of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the "intelligence" seems to be of the same dubious, politically "fixed" kind used 12 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicions of charges made by the US State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama tried yesterday to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as "a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift."
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on "intelligence" that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.

Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were "increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence" and told him flatly, "Powell’s presentation does not come close" to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to "widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can "shock and awe." In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.

If the photos that NATO and the US have released represent the best available "proof" of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the US embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, US Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.

Vladimir Putin has boasted to European leaders that his forces could sweep into Kiev in two weeks if he wanted.
The Russian president reportedly made the threat to the European Commission president during talks on the Ukraine crisis.
Mr Putin told Jose Manuel Barroso: “If I want to, I can take Kiev in two weeks,” Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper reported, implying this could be the result if the EU stepped up sanctions against Russia.
His comments, relayed by Mr Barroso to colleagues at last weekend’s EU summit, emerged as Nato announced it would build a new “spearhead” rapid reaction force of up to 4,000 troops that can be flown into eastern Europe in 48 hours to respond to possible Russian aggression.
The EU’s new head of foreign policy, Federica Mogherini, also warned there was no military solution to what is now Europe’s biggest crisis in decades.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary general of the alliance, said Nato faced multiple crises on its southern and eastern borders that could erupt at any time.
Leaders of the alliance’s 28 members are expected to agree to the new force at this week’s Nato summit in Wales, and it is likely to include British troops.
The spearhead force is part of a package of measures to sharpen up the alliance as it faces crises in Iraq andUkraine.
The summit will agree to stockpile supplies in eastern Europe so that equipment and ammunition are waiting for the force when it arrives.
The alliance will also boost the number of exercises in the area, so that troops are constantly cycling through it. Mr Rasmussen said the new spearhead force would “travel light and strike hard if needed”.

Also see:

Fierce fighting between Syrian rebel and government forces over the strategic Quneitra crossing on the Golan Heights has compelled Israel to up its readiness in the area

Forces loyal to the Assad regime have been fighting over the past day to retake the border area from rebels who captured it Wednesday, while rebel forces, including from the al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front, have been streaming to the area in a bid to hold the spot.

The IDF’s top brass is meeting Tuesday morning to assess the escalating situation, while the army’s Northern Command has deployed infantry forces in armored personnel carriers to the border area, Channel 10 reported.

On Monday morning, in the wake of the latest in a series of mortar shell explosions inside Israeli territory, the IDF declared the area near the Quneitra crossing a closed military zone.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday that both sides have sustained casualties in the fighting, which was focused around the town of Hamidiyeh in Quneitra province, near the Israeli border.

Fort Bliss, the American Army post across the border from the crime-ridden Mexican city of Juarez, is on high alert against a potential terrorist attack through the Labor Day weekend — but the Obama administration won’t admit it.

A Fort Bliss news release blandly describes the precautions, which include closing two normally open to civilian traffic and random inspections at others, as the “results of several recent security assessments and our constant concern for the safety of military members, families, employees and civilians,” according to the El Paso Times.

That’s understating the matter, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch issued a bulletin Friday stating federal authorities are aware of the risk of a Juarez-based attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Citing “high-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources,” the Judicial Watch bulletin said investigators have “picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to ‘carry out an attack on the border.’
“It’s coming very soon,” Judicial Watch quoted one source as saying, adding that the source identified the potential attackers as ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Separately, Breitbart.com reported Friday that it had obtained a document from state officials at the Texas Department of Public Safety warning of a potential ISIS attack. That document was illustrated with pictures of conservative activist James O’Keefe crossing the border in early August dressed as Osama bin Laden. The move was a stunt to show how porous the border really is.

The Israel-Hamas ceasefire went into effect last Tuesday, launching a week of fevered speculation about who won the 50-day conflict. Finding a winner may be hard, but finding some of the losers, less so. Along with the casualties on both sides, one clear loser was the US-Israel relationship.

On July 27, three weeks into the war, after Hamas had rejected Egypt’s proposal and before most of the war’s dead had died, US Secretary of State John Kerry powwowed with his Qatari and Turkish counterparts in Paris in an attempt to hammer out a draft that might entice Hamas to halt its fire.

The Paris talks produced a preliminary draft, effectively an agenda of issues that mattered to Hamas and Israel that would be taken up in the talks in Cairo under Egyptian auspices. The US quickly sent this document to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “for comment and input.”

News of the document’s contents and the Israeli cabinet’s displeasure leaked immediately, and Israeli media began to speculate whether the US was intentionally undermining Israel’s position.
The US believed the document was a secret consultation. But Netanyahu was so horrified by its contents — as were America’s favorite cabinet ministers, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Finance Minister Yair Lapid — that he decided to use it to send a message both to America and Hamas. There would be no enticing, and nothing on offer, until the Islamists’ fire at Israel stopped.

Kerry’s very willingness to entertain Hamas’s demands, the very notion of attempting to entice the enemy to the talks while rocket fire continued, was seen in Jerusalem as an attempt to let Hamas gently down from the tree before it had learned the lesson. Well-intentioned or not, Kerry’s actions undermined Netanyahu’s fundamental war strategy.

The US believed it was putting its political capital and regional alliances at the service of Israel’s own preferred recipe for ending the conflict (the Egyptian proposal), and was stunned and insulted at Israel’s entirely undiplomatic response to these efforts.
Israel, too, was stunned, and emerged from the crisis with a deep distrust of American intentions. The suspicion that Kerry misunderstood Israel’s strategy, the concern that American assistance was limited (and perhaps skewed against Israel in this case) by its other regional alliances, and the memory of similar clashes in the past served to plant seeds of mistrust that were unbridgeable in real time.
The two governments were reaping what they had sowed.

US-Israel tensions and misunderstandings were laid bare in the Gaza conflict. In its wake, the costs are becoming evident as well.