Monday, September 1, 2014

Abbas at Doha: PA will give Israel authority of West Bank if border talks fail

Haaretz-

You read that headline correctly! Abbas will punish Israel by giving them control of the West Bank.
That'll fix Israel and the US right up! Yup. Don't mess around with Abbas. He's a tough negotiator!

You have to read this article. Seriously.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly told Israel that if negotiations with the United States about establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines fail, he will transfer responsibility of West Bank lands to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The report emerged Monday in the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar, citing transcripts of a meeting in Doha between Abbas and Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. The newspaper published a photograph of the document, which appeared to come from the emir’s office.
According to the published protocol, Abbas conveyed this messages to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a meeting with an unnamed Israeli defense official in his Ramallah offices around two weeks ago.
Abbas reportedly told his counterparts at the Doha meeting that he told the Israeli official: "The peace process failed after 20 years, so our new strategy is that the United States and Israel agree to establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital in a limited amount of time, and that both sides immediately begin determining the borders.
 “If both sides agree,” Abbas continues, "we will continue the talks about the rest of the core issues. And if not, we will take the following measure: Cessation of the security coordination and transfer of responsibility for PA territory to Netanyahu, who will bear the responsibility for them.”
 I don't think I am misreading this? Abbas is saying that if the US and Israel can't agree on a Palestinian state based on the 67 borders he will transfer responsibility of the PA to Netanyahu. That's pretty clear.
Is Israel going to agree to this establishment of a Palestinians state, at all. Let alone a state with defined borders that may not be, exactly, to Israel's liking?

Isn't this absurd?

Abbas goes on to allege that Hamas attempted to foment a coup in the West bank against Abbas, as claimed by Israeli intelligence.

,Abbas was very angry during the meeting in Doha. The main part of the conversation, most of which focused on Hamas’ behavior toward the Palestinian Authority, was what Abbas characterized as Hamas’ attempted coup in the West Bank. “We agreed on a unity government in elections, but it seems that it will not go into effect. You are smuggling money and ammunition into the West Bank, not for a confrontation with Israel but to carry out a coup against me,” Abbas said. “All of this went on until the Israeli intelligence commander came to me [it is not clear whether he is referring to Yoram Cohen or a different intelligence official].”
“A security official came to me two weeks ago [in early August] and told me about the cell that had been arrested, which had been planning a coup against me," Abbas added. "That cell is connected to a person named Jawad who is staying in Jordan. That person reports to Saleh al-Arouri [a high-ranking Hamas operative living in Turkey].”
Throughout the protocol there was an argument between Meshal and Abbas, in addition to Moussa Abu Marzouk and Khalil al-Hayya, high-ranking Hamas operatives who were also at the meeting and quarreled with Abbas for having adopted the Israeli version of events and believing everything Israel told him.
Meshal: “I don’t know anything about reports from the Israeli Shin Bet,” referring to Israel’s security service, “and nobody knows about it. Since the meeting started, you have been irritable and I understand your anger, but you must not build a theory or base a position on an Israeli story that talks about a coup. You come to meet with us, but you don’t trust us.”
Abbas answers: “I believe Israel’s reports.”

Hmmm..... I smell the odour of divide to conquer here--- It's foul.
Would Israel have concocted a coup, real or imaginary, to cause a split between the Palestinians?

UPDATE:  Egypt slams Israel plan to seize Palestinian land

 On Sunday, Israel said it would expropriate 400 hectares (988 acres) of Palestinian land around Bethlehem, and allowed 45 days for any appeal.
 On Sunday, the Israeli army department tasked with administering civil affairs in Palestinian occupied territories said: "On the instructions of the political echelon... 4,000 dunams at Gevaot (settlement) is declared as state land

Related?  Air Corridors & Bogus Humanitarianism as cover for wider war in the Middle East?
 -Particularly Turkey's willingness to fly our Palestinians
How does Turkey wanting an “air corridor” in agreement with Israel/Egypt fit into this whole scenario?

Turkey is seeking Israeli Egyptian agreement for an “air corridor” to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza

ANKARA, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Turkey is seeking Israeli and Egyptian agreement for an air corridor to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza and evacuate possibly thousands of injured Palestinians for treatment, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Wednesday.

Related?- Jordan: Threatened by Western pressure applied via ISIS- Chafe at US/Israeli peace plan

 Recall? Not Hamas- Sinai based 'terror group' claims responsibility for student deaths




Sunday, August 31, 2014

Ukraine- Updates from Anthony & Attack on Ukraine Naval Vessel in Azov Sea

Anthony has updated myself and readers on the situation in Ukraine-
Excerpts from his comments are below. There is also a news item I thought interesting and am not sure what to make of it?
The latest from the Donbass and it's as confused as ever. Here are some of the main points to note.

The militia are still holding on to the recently acquired territory in the south and have Mariupol surrounded. Mariupol would be a fantastic prize to win before the winter sets in. A sea port and apparently has large stocks of food, although the Russians have pledged to send more humanitarian aid and the roads are now pretty much clear of Ukranian forces.
I did notice that Mariupol was surrounded by militia. Kiev has forces stationed in the city. (Resource in sidebar)

The latest BBC article still persists in showing an isolated pocket of militia gains on the south coast next to the Russian order so as to further the Russian invasion meme. Even the wiki page is better and shows a corridor connecting the south coast to militia territory in the north, although wiki still vastly underplays the actual militia position.

The militia have been focussing on reducing the boilers, but they have stated that phase two of the counter offensive is planned, with lots of newly acquired equipment to play with. Ukranian soldiers have been surrendering in their hundreds. The militia are splitting conscripts from national guard, right sector and the various nazi leaning paramilitaries. My understanding is that tank crews and artillery men are also being sorted out, partly because they are guilty of massacring the civilian population, but also I think to prevent trained men returning to fight.

There was some confusion and reports of large numers of Ukranians dead and wounded when, depending on which reports you believe: 1: The Ukranians were cynically butchered by the militia who reneged on their promise of a humanitarian corridor or 2: The Ukranian soldiers were slaughtered as they cynically abused the offer of escape without weapons y regrouping and trying to power their way out with equipment, in respone to which the milita blasted them.
Could a 3rd scenario be that the neonazi's slaughtered the 'cowardly' soldiers? 
Framing the separatists and putting the fear into other Ukie troops? Is that plausible?

Highly significantly, Poroshenko has been quoted as saying that there is no military solution to the conflict. Which, translated, means that there is no chance of a Ukranian victory.

Putin has been emphasizing the need for recognition of statehood for the Donbass. The milita have all the cards right now and they can continue to fight to regain all of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics if Poroshenko plays hard ball.
Some good news on the ground.

The strategically important town of Litugino, south of Lugansk on the H21 highway, is now showing as militia controlled. A couple of small towns / villages south of Litugino are also showing as militia controlled as the boiler gets squeezed back to the Lugansk airport.

There is fighting at Donetsk airport. Ukrainian troops there are becoming increasingly isolated as the militia slowly pushes out of Donetsk.

The Ukranian flag on Debalcevo at the crossroads of the M03 and M04 highways has gone. There were reports of a Ukranian withdrawal to prevent another boiler. Are they finally learning? Thankfully, far too late.

Less positive is the Ukranian flag showing at Volnohava on the H20 highway south of Donetsk to Mariupol. The militia line here looks wafer thin, but the Ukranians to the east of the H20 are under attack from different directions and who knows the qulaity of Ukranian forces to the east.

Last comment and thanks Anthony!
In addition to the attack on Donetsk airport, the militia have also launched an atttack on Lugansk airport. Some reports claim that it has been taken.

These airports were thorns in the side of the militia and would represent decisive steps towards restoring normality in the two cities and of course free resources for other campaigns.

Anthony
Curious news item- Separatists Claim Attack on Ukrainian Naval Ship 
Was Kiev attempting to move on the rebels via the Azov Sea?
Separatist rebels attacked a Ukrainian naval vessel in the Azov Sea on Sunday by firing artillery from the shore, and a Ukrainian military spokesman said a rescue operation was under way.
Spokesman Andriy Lysenko said the vessel was a naval cutter. There was no information on the number of people on board.
The pro-Russian rebels claimed responsibility for the attack near the city of Mariupol, located about 50 kilometres (30 miles) from the Russian border and about 35 kilometres from Novoazovsk, which was overtaken by pro-Russian rebels over the weekend.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Syrian "rebels" despite strengthening their hold at Golan pose NO security threat to Israel

Of course they don't. Why would they? They are on Israel's team. They are NATO/US/Israel's Islamist fighters- They will terrorize Syrians. They will terrorize Iraqis. Because they are paid to do just that.
But, they will not threaten Israel.
Mentioned this blatantly obvious fact, not for the first time, just the other day in this post
 ISIS = Smoke & Mirrors. Giving cover now for strikes on Syria

Of course, Israel, has nothing to fear because the NATO/US/Israeli Islamist fighters aren’t interested in fighting against Israel - Jihadists in Syria not likely to open a new front against Israel
Not now, not ever

Haaretz-  And here is Israel, today, making it very clear they remain completely unconcerned 

Senior Israeli official says rebels currently don't pose a threat to Israeli security.

Syrian rebel groups strengthened their hold over the Syrian side of the Quneitra Crossing — located on the frontier between Syrian and Israeli controlled parts of the Golan Heights – over the weekend and managed to repel attacks by Syrian forces.
Some 300 members from different groups participated in the taking of the Quneitra Crossing. This varied force was led by the Free Syria Army and with only a small number of Nusra Front members. The government forces that held the crossing before sustained losses in life and retreated to the north to areas controlled by the government. Over the weekend the Syrian army conducted several artillery barrages on the crossing area and tried to retake the area unsuccessfully. Israeli security officials characterized this attempt as "pathetic.”
300 members from different groups? Brand FSA. Brand Nusra. Brand ISIS. Makes no difference the brand name for selling the narrative- At the pinnacle the leadership and direction is purely NATO. And the goal  is the same, no matter which brand 'rebel' is working to attain that goal.

A senior Israeli official told Haaretz Saturday that the new circumstances in the Quneitra region don't not pose an immediate danger to Israel and that the area near the Israeli border is held by the Free Syria Army, which has reasonable relations with Israel.
According to the official, except for the raising of an Al-Qaida flag on the Syrian side of the crossing by members of the Nusra Front, there were no provocations against Israel. The official assessed that in the short run the moderate Free Syria Army would restrain the more radical Nusra Front from taking any action against Israel fearing a severe Israeli response. "For now, no one on the Syrian side is pointing their guns at us, because they know that they will sustain a powerful blow if they try anything." He said, though he admitted that this may turn out to be temporary and that the frequent changes in Syria may have an effect on Israeli security in the future.
Yes, changes in Syria may have an effect on Israeli security, but, that has nothing to do with whichever brand 'rebel' doing the dirty work to benefit NATO/Israel and destroy Syria

Recall this news?

NATO's killers in Syria: Will Trade Golan in exchange for no fly zone enforcement

Can it be anymore clear that the 'opposition' is not Syrian? Not that I need to remind regular readers here. Can it be anymore clear that the so called opposition has been supported by, cooperated with and continues to collude with Israel. Israel is not afraid of Islamists for the simple reason they are on the same team.
That fact is abundantly clear!
 

Haaretz- Syrian Opposition willing to trade Golan claims for Israeli Military support
And still today, Israel has no fear from these so called rebels- 
This is blatant stuff readers. Israel and the rebels are on the same team!

Friday, August 29, 2014

Henry Kissinger- The Assembly of a New World Order

Just published today by WSJ
The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis
 Henry Kissinger
Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.
Our world as a rubiks cube? How very arrogant of the powers that shouldn't be to represent our planet in this manner

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.
This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.
First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

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.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

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. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

—Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

ISIS = Smoke & Mirrors. Giving cover now for strikes on Syria

Finally, the post I have been wanting to get to!

We have to realize that ISIS is the smoke and mirrors to the ME reshape.
ISIS is the deception. The distraction. While we are spoon fed the ISIS soma, NATO headed by the US, in cahoots with Israel and the GCC nations reorder the globe to suit their agenda
 If you don't understand the metaphor- This definition will do
Smoke and mirrors is a metaphor for a deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description. The source of the name is based on magicians' illusions, where magicians make objects appear or disappear by extending or retracting mirrors amid a distracting burst of smoke. The expression may have a connotation of virtuosity or cleverness in carrying out such a deception.
ISIS = Smoke and Mirrors. Covering for the agenda that has been in the works for sometime now
And it's multifaceted. Kurdistan is being created with the cover of ISIS- Iraq is being further destroyed, it's elected government tossed out under cover of ISIS. Syria, is still struggling and is my focus today

Point by point on some news and views that have been on my mind


First- There has been a rumour making that rounds that the US is providing Syria with intelligence to bomb ISIS targets.

This rumour, in my opinion, is total nonsense.
-Syria has their own surveillance capabilities
-Russia can fill in the gaps
-The populace who revile NATO’s Islamist jihadis can also fill in intelligence gaps

Wherever, or however this rumour got started, mystifies me. But, it certainly shouldn’t be spread around because it is equivalent to spreading gossip.

Here is how I see events falling into place based on the information at hand-

-The US will launch airstrikes into Syria.
-They are and have been laying the groundwork for sometime now.
- Creation of the petro state Kurdistan-
-Soften targets for an onslaught of Islamists, Kurds, Turks and whoever else they have holed up in Northern Iraq
-It is possible, once they have the territory for Kurdistan cleared of Syrians, they will then offer Syria a defacto truce that will be nothing of the sort.
The US can spin the bogus truce narrative along this line.  ISIS is under control in Syria- so no more airstrikes and the so called 'civil war', that never was a civil war, will rage on with the same NATO Islamist fighters. Only this time, there will be more of them and they will be striking a weakened Syria.

This is something mentioned by the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and it seems quite likely

  • Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told the newspaper that a de facto truce with Assad was probable, though it was unlikely that Western government would offer public support to the Assad regime.
He said he doubted that "the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who had pursued regime change in Syria were capable of reversing course. To do so would require them to admit that they bore considerable responsibility for legitimising pointless violence that has resulted in the deaths of 190,000 Syrians."
The liberal interventionists and neocons aren't going to take responsibility for the deaths of Syrians.  Though, to my mind, they are completely and unquestionably responsible for all the deaths of Syrians. All the displacement. All the disease. All the terror that has been brought upon the people

2nd: The US has made abundantly clear through words and actions they want Assad gone.

"As a matter of US policy, we have not recognized" Assad as the leader in Syria, Earnest said, according to a transcript. "There are no plans to change that policy and there are no plans to coordinate with the Assad regime."

When asked if Earnest's comments also represented a denial of the AFP report, White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden said it did.
President Barack Obama has reportedly given the go-ahead for the U.S. military to begin surveillance flights in Syria to gather intelligence on ISIS. The intelligence-gathering could be a prelude for potential strikes on the group in Syria.
Covered in this post-Pentagon laying ground work for strike on (ISIS in) Syria

3rd: Some observers and analysts have accused Assad of facilitating ISIS' rise
More nonsense, used to demonzie Assad. As I have explained repeatedly. The Syrian government, elected by the Syrian people and lead by Assad have been fighting ISIS since the destabilization began, by NATO’s Islamist army. There are no moderates, there are only extremist fighters armed, trained etc, by NATO/US/Israel. ISIS = Smoke and Mirrors

4th point- A commenter left this tidbit the other day- Linking the original news source
“In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets

This tells us quite clearly that Syria is battling ISIS, contrary to the lies.  Because the US claims they would strike Syrian targets to avoid strengthening the government against ISIS. Which of course, the US would not want to aid Syria's fight against NATO Islamist fighters aka terrorists.
The US appears to be doing almost nothing in Iraq against ISIS. Other then making a show of things. -Considering the Iraqi situation it seems plausible that the US will simply target Syrian assets to strengthen the position of their ISIS assets. As mentioned in my prognostications above
 “However, that option is largely unappealing to the president given that it could open the U.S. to the kind of long-term commitment to Syria's stability that Obama has sought to avoid.

That quoted claim is just pure, stinking, piled high excrement.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying, "We're not interested in trying to help the Assad regime."
It's pretty clear airstrikes in Syria, will be just that, airstrikes against Syria

Finally- Today we get reports  that Syria was bombing Islamists at the Golan border.

You know the ones that get their cover and succor from Israel And Israel is firing into Syria. The lying media is claiming the rebels have ‘captured’ the border crossing- Nonsense! The rebels have always been at the border crossing in occupied Golan.This has happened on previous occasions. When Syria moves on Israel’s assets- Israel covers their assets, asses.
It appears there was fighting in that area yesterday and Syria is using aerial bombing to prep a push back in.
 -Assad's forces lost control of the key area yesterday after heavy fighting
-Syrian jets bombed Al Qaeda rebels near a border crossing close to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights today after losing control of the area in yesterday's heavy clashes.
-Israel shells Syria as rebels take border crossing

Of course, Israel, has nothing to fear because the NATO/US/Israeli Islamist fighters aren’t interested in fighting against Israel - Jihadists in Syria not likely to open a new front against Israel
Not now, not ever
Taking the military post bordering on Israel is “clearly a risky move for any Syrian rebel group considering the delicate state of dynamics in that area,” said Lister. However, he said, such a move should be seen as part of the rebels’ wider campaign goal of ridding Syria’s southwest Quneitra Governorate of regime forces.

There is no risk for the rebel group- They know Israel is their ally.

Don't miss UN Security Council meeting at Lithuania's request- Separatists take strategic town!

UN Security Council meeting at Lithuania's request- Separatists take strategic town!

 UPDATED!

The UN Security Council is preparing to meet in emergency session on the growing crisis in Ukraine.
Diplomats said Thursday that the council will meet at 2 p.m. at the request of Lithuania.

Lithuania, of course, brings to mind F the EU Nuland and her neocon husband Robert Kagan

Why this sudden concern?
Strategic town taken by Separatists was the original headline.... as sent to me

This advance connects Crimea to the Eastern separatist region- hence the concern  of Lithuania

Novoazovsk, which lies along the road connecting Russia to the Russia-annexed Crimea
The new southeastern front raised fears that the separatists are seeking to create a land link between Russia and Crimea. If successful, it could give them or Russia control over the entire Sea of Azov and the gas and mineral riches that energy experts believe it contains.
Ukraine already lost roughly half its coastline, several major ports and significant Black Sea mineral rights in March when Russia annexed Crimea.
 National Guard reinforcements were taking up positions in Mariupol.
"The positions are being strengthened," the spokesman said. "The road from Novoazovsk to Mariupol is under the control of Ukrainian troops."

Check the location of these latest advances using the resource top/sidebar to the right.
Novorossiya has just taken a big step forward- I get the frantic Lithuanian request

UPDATED YET AGAIN!

Ukraine leader, after key loss to separatists, says situation 'difficult but controllable'

 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, speaking on Thursday after the army lost a key town to separatists, said the situation in the conflict zone in the east was "extraordinarily difficult ... but controllable"
 The loss of Novoazovsk, Ukraine's most southeasterly point, after a two-day assault by Russian-backed separatists in an armoured column, is a blow to government forces since it leaves vulnerable the big port city of Mariupol, further west along the coast.
Yup, the NATO panic is palpable!

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

No breakthrought at Minsk- Second front opens as Ukie forces flounder

Still being dam short on time and want to get to yet more on Syria & Ukraine, but this tidbit is going to have to do. Hopefully some great commenters will leave some more info!!
hint, hint :)

Janes- Opening of second front as peace talks flounder indicates a military stalemate is developing in eastern Ukraine

Key Points

  • Peace talks were held between Russia and Ukraine in Minsk on 26 August, although little progress was made in finding a solution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, as separatist fighters apparently launched a new offensive towards the city of Mariupol.
  • The poor organisation, logistics, and training of Ukrainian government forces make it highly unlikely they will achieve a military victory over the rebels in eastern Ukraine before the onset of winter, while Russia's direct but unofficial military support to the separatists is likely to intensify, with the aim of forcing the Ukrainian leadership into talks with the insurgents.
Minsk summit produces no breakthrough for Ukraine

While describing the talks as "positive," Russian President Vladimir Putin said the details of truce terms are the internal matter for Kiev.
"Russia can't substantively discuss conditions of a ceasefire...That is not our business, it's up to Ukraine itself," Putin told reporters in Minsk, Belarus early on Wednesday.
Ukraine must talk to separatists
"We can only contribute to creating a situation of trust for a possible, and in my view, extremely necessary, negotiation process," he added.
Ukraine must talk to separatists

For Ukraine, the largely Russian-speaking region is where the country's economic foundation lies.
Rich in deposits of coal and iron ore, the eastern part of Ukraine holds almost the entire industry of Ukraine, making the cession of this region unacceptable for Kiev.
Kiev now urgently wants the rebels to hand back the territory they have captured in eastern Ukraine

The EU is very concerned with trade. Read entire article at above link

First post of the day- also open for comments for a short time
James Foley: Fake tape = No beheading. Spooks and spies, oh my!