In the Rimland Theory, the renowned American political scientist Nickolas Spykman introduces the Inner Crescent Theory. The theory’s introduction forms the basis of America’s geopolitical thought and in extension the practice of the Western World. The Inner Crescent Theory is a worthy mention in this article owing to the importance of the contents contained therein. However, such mention will be brief as this article’s main intention does not lie in making a detailed reference to the previously mentioned theory. Instead, the objective is to understand it through perceiving the world as a competitive environment between land and sea forces.

Sir Halford John Mackinder was Nickolas Spykman’s mentor. Sir Halford helped shape his perception. In his work The Geographical Pivot of History Mackinder discusses the importance of the World-Island, which comprises the interlinked continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia. These are the most populous and richest land combinations possible. He also traces the Pivot Area, which consists of the territories of the earth’s centre. His idea is that the alliance between the two would lead to domination resulting from abundant population as well as natural resources. Mackinder published his book Democratic Ideals and Reality in 1919. His perceptions can aptly be summarized as follows: “whoever rules East Europe commands the Heartland; whoever rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; whoever rules the World-Island commands the World.”

In his essay “The Geography of the Peace” (1944) Spykman revised Mackinder’s work. He sought to correct Mackinder’s geopolitical perceptions regarding the primary geopolitical importance of the Pivot Area. Instead, he shifted focus to those states that formed a circle around the Central Earth, also known as the “Heartland” or Russia. These are the countries surrounded by the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans and also the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. An alliance of the states found in that common area would effectively strangle the Heartland’s land forces and deny them access to both the land and sea trade routes.

Maritime isolation, viewed as a disadvantage can be reversed into an advantage by controlling the sea trade routes. The US, UK, and Japan as maritime powers have been utilizing this advantage to the present. Control of the Crescent of Containment is more significant in geopolitical terms than a grip on the Heartland. Failure to control the former, allows the land forces to decisively turn the global balance of power in their favor.

Climate Change & Ice Melting

The Rimland Theory has for a long time persisted with much prevail even as it is in support of the plan by the West to impose a chokehold on the USSR and subsequently to its heir, the Russian Federation. An interesting dynamic has since occurred that Spykman could not have foreseen in 1944: ice melting in the Arctic Circle has opened up the possibility of a northern sea trade passage. Such an opening will effectively weaken the level of importance that the Crescent carries.

The melting ice introduces a significant shift in power dynamics strengthening the RF over its rivals. Such melting eases the extraction of energy resources in the AC. Moscow gets into position to gain maritime advantage in addition to the immense land power that it already has. One could suggest that EU and UN member states turn to green growth does not only pertain to the need to channel capital into a new investment area in an effort to protect the environment from the long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel consumption. Climate change moves centre stage in geopolitical competition.

Opening of the northern sea passage weakens maritime trade through the Suez Canal. This is the desire of both Russia and China, but also India, within the framework of the Polar Silk Road (PSR) project. The PSR project is seen as a less costly alternative for merchant shipping from East to West. Implementation of the PSR has been met with US hostility. Washington has taken both diplomatic and military steps to frustrate its development. The EU, on the other hand, has not taken any aggressive stance. Brussels is rather defensive in its approach. China tends to become the most significant trade partner of the Union. (It is now closely trailing in second place behind the US). After US President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) negotiations (2017) this trend became more accentuated.

Both positive and negative attributes accrue from every phenomenon. It would be wrong to assume that only either of the two should be expected. Predictions thus become difficult to make. A most appropriate example: as the EU turns increasingly to Renewable Energy Sources (RES) thereby diminishing the importance of Russian natural gas imports, Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline is coming to fruition. Nord Stream 2 pipeline will establish an energy link between Russia and Germany which will, in turn, weaken the Western Bloc’s attempt to secure alternative routes mainly through the EASTMED and TAP pipelines.

A developing phenomenon is in the making whose consequences will climax in the next twenty to thirty years: Russian acquisition of the Crimean, Syrian, and Libyan ports has cracked the Crescent. However, the opening of the northern passage would create a different dynamic as the Russian merchant fleet develops, with ports and shipbuilding industry within Russian territory.

With the ice melting, Russian access to the Arctic’s mineral wealth is expected to further increase:  a phenomenon already witnessed in Stalin’s era. Yet Russia is in a unique position of strength over the Arctic Circle contestant countries due to its technological know-how in icebreaking technology and pumping of mineral wealth from soils with such characteristics. In addition to maintaining its military superiority over the US, Russia is also renovating its ports on the icy northern shores of Arkhangelsk and Kronstadt.

The EU and the UN on Climate Change and the Dilemmas of the States

The Paris Climate Agreement, of which the US is a member state, aims at a global temperature reduction by two degrees Celsius in comparison to the pre-industrial levels. Reducing pollution by 55 per cent by the year 2030 is an objective of the UN encapsulated within this framework. Additionally, 2050 is the year within which the UN hopes to achieve the first climate-neutral world race that would have zero greenhouse gas emissions and would also disassociate growth from the use of resources.

Despite the effort being made to achieve the goals, the EU report on the participation of RES in total energy consumption for 2019, reveals that the Union is just 0.3% behind the 20% goal. Greece and Cyprus have managed to achieve the national goal they set but are slightly behind the goal set by the EU. It is necessary to mention at this point, that the up-to-date studies regarding the results of the development of RES are not sufficient to determine whether the rate of environmental recovery – and therefore the reversal of the ice melting trend – is higher than its rate of environmental deterioration.

Achieving the Arctic Route remains a big dream. Its operation will, no doubt weaken the significance of North African ports and the Eastern Mediterranean as the initial reception points through the Suez Canal. This will make Russia a remarkable global power with the ability to dynamically project power at sea.

In conclusion, the adaptation of a state’s international alliances must take such tendencies into account, but it does not cease to be shaped based on the respective nation’s advantages. A sober study of the unfolding trend is necessary even as we see its co-existence with compensatory trends. The melting of the ice will strengthen the Russian naval force at the expense of the US bringing a relative balance in this area. At the same time, the RES weakens Russia’s “Natural Gas” superpower weapon as an exportable product to the EU.

*Elias Hadjikoumis is Foreign, Security & Defence Policy Expert and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Κατ’ αρχάς ας ξεκινήσουμε με την σημασία της διεξαγωγής αδιάβλητων δημοψηφισμάτων ως γνήσιας έκφρασης αυτοδιάθεσης των λαών. Η ημερομηνία δημοσίευσης του άρθρου του ΧΜ συμπίπτει με μια σημαντική επέτειο της Κυπριακής Ιστορίας: η 15η Ιανουαρίου του 1950, ήταν η πρώτη Κυριακή του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος στην Κύπρο. Τότε, ο Κυπριακός Λαός ψήφισε με καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία για την Ένωση της νήσου με την Ελλάδα. Η απόφαση του καταπατήθηκε από τους Βρετανούς αποικιοκράτες ενώ η αδυναμία της μητέρας πατρίδας να προστρέξει για εφαρμογή της ξεκάθαρης ετυμηγορίας (96%) κατέστησε το αποτέλεσμα του Κυπριακού δημοψηφίσματος ανενεργό εις το διηνεκές! Αντίθετα στην περίπτωση της Κριμαϊκής Χερσονήσου, όπου επίσης η καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία του Κριμαϊκού λαού ψήφισε υπέρ της ένωσης με την Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία, η ετυμηγορία εφαρμόστηκε πάραυτα με απόφαση της Μόσχας η οποία και από τότε προχωρά στην κοινωνικο-οικονομική ανάπτυξη της Κριμαίας.

Χαρακτηριστικά, όπως αναφέρεται και στο άρθρο του ΧΜ, κατά την τελευταία τετραετία, στην Κριμαϊκή Χερσόνησο οι υποδομές, η αγροτική και βιομηχανική οικονομία αναπτύσσονται, ο ορυκτός πλούτος καθίσταται εκμεταλλεύσιμος και βεβαίως συνεπακολούθως το βιοτικό επίπεδο του τοπικού πληθυσμού ανεβαίνει. Εμφανώς η Ρωσική κυβέρνηση έχει μακροπρόθεσμο σχέδιο ανάπτυξης της Κριμαίας, το οποίο μετατρέπει την δυσκολία της επιβολής Δυτικών κυρώσεων σε μια ευκαιρία διαφορετικής ανάπτυξης της περιοχής. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, όπως αναφέρεται στο προαναφερθέν άρθρο: «Στόχος της Ρωσίας είναι η Κριμαία να γίνει η νότια πύλη των αφρικανικών χωρών και των προϊόντων τους και να δημιουργήσει μια ζώνη ελεύθερης αγοράς [εμπορίου] για τα αγροτικά προϊόντα που προέρχονται από χώρες της ΕΕ, τα οποία λόγω κυρώσεων δεν προωθούνται στη ρωσική αγορά και των οποίων η αξία ανέρχεται στα 100 δις ευρώ.» Γίνεται αντιληπτό ότι ο όγκος των εν δυνάμει συναλλαγών είναι τεράστιος.

Στο άρθρο επισημαίνεται επίσης η σοβαρή εκδοχή, να έχει προκατασκευαστεί η νέα κρίση των Στενών του Κερτς από τον πρόεδρο Ποροσένκο με σκοπό να συσπειρώσει τις ψήφους των ακραίων εθνικιστών σε μια προσπάθεια να αποσοβήσει προδιαγεγραμμένη ήττα λόγω της άθλιας οικονομικής κατάστασης στην χώρα.

Ένα άλλο σοβαρό ενδεχόμενο μας βρίσκει επίσης σύμφωνους: όπως εκτιμάται από αρκετούς διεθνών αναλυτών, η πρόσφατη κρίση στο Κερτς πιθανόν να είναι πρόβα τζενεράλε για έναυσμα Γ’ Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Οι ΗΠΑ, για ανεξήγητο(;) λόγο, έχουν αποχωρήσει από την Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – Συνθήκη INF (όχι ΙΜF όπως εκ παραδρομής αναφέρεται στο εν λόγω άρθρο). Η Συνθήκη INF διημείφθη το 1987 μεταξύ ΗΠΑ και ΕΣΣΔ και προέβλεπε απόσυρση πυραύλων – και των εκτοξευτών τους – τόσο συμβατικών όσο και πυρηνικών, βεληνεκούς 500 μέχρι 5,500 χιλιομέτρων. Μέσα σε τέσσερα χρόνια, μέχρι το 1991, είχαν αποσυρθεί από την ενεργό δράση 2,692 πύραυλοι. Στη δεκαετία 1991-2001 διεθνείς παρατηρητές επιβεβαίωναν με διατεταγμένες επιθεωρήσεις ότι οι αποσυρθέντες πύραυλοι παρέμειναν ανενεργοί.

Σήμερα, ως αποτέλεσμα της Αμερικανικής απόσυρσης από την Συνθήκη INF, αλλά και της γενικότερης τεταμένης κατάστασης δημιουργηθείσας από τις απανωτές επελάσεις του ΝΑΤΟ επί του πάλαι πότε Σοβιετικού χώρου άσκησης επιρροής – κατ’ αθέτηση σιωπηρής συμφωνίας μη επέκτασης του μετά την διάλυση της ΕΣΣΔ –  γινόμαστε σήμερα μάρτυρες μιας νέας κούρσας εξοπλιστικού ανταγωνισμού η οποία αναβιώνει τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο. Από την μια, ΗΠΑ με το ρυμουλκούμενο της ΝΑΤΟ να επιχειρούν με υπερβολική αυταρέσκεια να παίξουν τον ρόλο του αδιαμφισβήτητου πλανητάρχη, ενώ από την άλλη μια ανερχόμενη Ρωσία και Κίνα να ορθώνουν ανασχετικώς το ανάστημα τους. Ας σημειώσουμε εδώ ότι αθροιστικά οι δύο τελευταίες δυνάμεις πόρρω απέχουν σε στρατιωτικές δαπάνες συγκρινόμενες με αυτές της υπερδύναμης των ΗΠΑ.

Όπως και να ‘χει το ξέσπασμα ενός καταστροφικού περιφερειακού πολέμου στον Εύξεινο Πόντο θα είχε απρόβλεπτες συνέπειες. Θα μπορούσε εύλογα να ρωτήσει ο μέσος Κύπριος: και τι μπορεί να πράξει η μικρή και αδύναμη Κύπρος; Κι όμως η Κύπρος ως μέλος της ΕΕ με κατά πλειοψηφία ορθόδοξο πληθυσμό και άριστες σχέσεις τόσο με την Μόσχα όσο και με το Κίεβο και τις ΗΠΑ θα μπορούσε να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία διαμεσολάβησης σπρώχνοντας προς την κατεύθυνση της εκτόνωσης της κρίσης και της προώθησης του αφοπλισμού. Είμαστε πεπεισμένοι ότι η ομόδοξη προεδρεύουσα της ΕΕ παρευξείνια Ρουμανία έχει επίσης άμεσο κι απτό συμφέρον εκτόνωσης της παρούσας κρίσης.

Ως προς το γενικότερο ζήτημα της μη εξάπλωσης, με απώτερο στόχο την εξάλειψη των Όπλων Μαζικής Καταστροφής, ας μας επιτραπεί να αναφέρουμε ότι η δουλειά του Δικτύου Ανεξαρτήτων Δεξαμενών Σκέψης της ΕΕ στο συγκεκριμένο φλέγον ζήτημα δεν είναι αμελητέα κι έχει την στήριξη της καθ ύλην αρμόδιας Φεντερίκα Μογκερίνι. Ένα κυπριακό ίδρυμα ερευνών συμμετέχει σε αυτή την αγωνιώδη προσπάθεια …

Small EU member states have neither enough power nor influence to impact radically the policy of this quasi-state entity. Their statements against the anti-Russian sanctions, or, conversely, their demands for cessation of all communication with Moscow do not have much impact on policy makers in Brussels.

But on the other hand, we know that second tier politicians in many countries of the world express ideas that power cannot or do not want to voice. In the same way smaller states can come forward with policy proposals, which subsequently will be considered as official Brussels policy.

Estonia and Slovakia almost simultaneously made consequential political statements about Russia. Estonian President Kirsti Kaliulayd said in an interview with the BBC that the sooner the relations between Russia and the Western countries become normal, the better. At the same time, the Estonian President declared that she would be pleased if good relations prevail with Moscow. She added, however, that Russia is too ‘unpredictable’. On the direct question whether she considers Russia a “hostile state”, Kaliulayd unequivocally replied “no.”

Andrey Danko, the Speaker of the Slovak Parliament, accuses other countries that officially they come forward for Russia’s containment, but in fact they do not stop cooperation with Moscow. “I see that, contrary to sanctions, the trade between Russia and EU member states is thriving. There are a lot of representatives of US companies in Russia,” he said during the recent 137th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in St. Petersburg. According to Danko, in relations with Moscow “we missed many things, because we wanted to differ from the Russians. But we need a Slavic reciprocity, as well as cooperation in the economic sphere”.

It is equally interesting to note that in neighboring Austria, the conservative Austrian People’s Party won the recent elections. The country’s last Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurtz heads the winner party. Kurtz stands for the abolition of sanctions on Russia. In another neighboring country the Czech Republic, Andrei Babish has won the parliamentary elections. He is suspected of wanting “to orient the Czech Republic (and at the same time Central Europe) towards Moscow, forcing it to “turn away from Brussels and Washington.” Thus Prague’s rapprochement with Moscow becomes very likely. In addition, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is frequently accused of being “pro-Russian,” and he is also against sanctions on Russia.

Of course, all the statements about the need for the resumption of dialogue and the abolition of sanctions against Russia are due not to a disinterested love of Russia and not to “Slavic reciprocity”. Sanctions harm all European countries, but Central and Eastern Europe, due to geographical proximity and tuned Soviet-era ties, suffers more. Among the EU member states due to sanctions on Russia, Cyprus suffered especially badly: exports to Russia for the period 2014-16 dropped by 34, 5%. Very significant losses were suffered by such countries as Greece (-23, 2%) and Croatia (-21%). Only Ukrainian politicians are able to harm their own economy and citizens, as they hope that the current war or a new revolution will absolve them from responsibility. In other European countries, the situation is different. Warsaw officially welcomes the new sanctions on Russia imposed by the United States, but it is not in a hurry to toe the line.

If the EU intends to continue to be the unifying force, its leading countries Germany and France should make a univocal statement. It is high time for it. The fact remains that smaller European countries are increasingly proposing to abolish sanctions and are ready to resume full-fledged cooperation with Russia. They are waiting from Berlin and Paris for very concrete statements as well as actions toward this direction.

“We will provide assistance by way of advice. Today we will discuss the issue of the association. We are pleased that despite these difficult times, and reforms, the country exhibits economic growth,” said Merkel. Where she got the data about the rising showings in the heavily impoverished country, is unknown. Probably, she has believed Poroshenko’s words. In addition, Merkel characterized as hard all the measures that the IMF has demanded from Ukraine as a precondition of granting loans.

The evolving situation in the relations between Europe and Ukraine, is puzzling. The authorities in Kiev bend over backwards in order to secure that at least one of the EU member-states helped Ukraine, in appreciation of its pro-Western aspirations. Europe pretends to be ready to help, but it is not in a hurry to do so. The logic is simple: it is high time European taxpayers money was saved, especially because everyone understands that Ukraine will never return the loans.

Recently, the focus of the EU-Ukraine dialogue has been reduced to a single item: soliciting of money.  Whether the next tranche will be granted at all and under what conditions – if provided – remains to be seen.

In January 2015, the well-known billionaire investor George Soros said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that “the ability of the West to provide financial support to Ukraine will be a crucial test of strength of “disintegrating Europe” opposing a “growing Russia”. Twenty five years ago the Soviet Union collapsed while Europe united, but today the situation is quite the opposite. Consequently, Europe has failed to pass the “test of strength” referred to by George Soros.

Irrespective of how one rates the personality of Soros, there is no doubt that he is a great financier and that it is worth heeding to his point of view. Appealing to Europe, Soros was evidently panicked, knowing that things in the West were going bad.

Shortly before his statement, Soros visited Kiev. Being an ace at his job, he has easily assessed the situation in the Ukrainian economy. The adventurer Soros, the famous investor in all post-Soviet regimes, who welcomed the coup in the Ukraine, recognized that the investment to this country is a pointless undertaking. No sooner he said so and financial tranches to Kiev were seriously curtailed.

President Petro Poroshenko and other Ukrainian politicians often reiterate that their country needs the assistance from abroad because they “are waging a war for Europe”. Evidently Poroshenko engaged in self-importance overrating the role of Ukraine: war is waged not by them, but via them. The West has used the country for its own purposes: to tear Ukraine away from Russia and to move NATO eastward. Major players on the global chessboard are least interested in the fate of the Ukrainian people. Kiev politicians instead of restoring cooperation with Russia and joining the process of Eurasian integration, in other words doing what is beneficial to their national economy, fall for the temptation of odious “European choice”.

No doubt according to Western plans, the Ukrainians had to fight hard with their eastern compatriots turning the conflict into a protracted one. Funding for this bloody project, of course, was also expected. The US did not hide the fact that only for preparation and execution of the “Maidan” mass demonstration they spent more than five billion dollars, not to mention contributions to the ensuing war. The West could not imagine that a significant portion of the channeled funds would dissolve in Ukraine and that it would be impossible to explain where the money has gone.

Ukraine is losing the image of the European power that was created by the West. Until recently, Ukrainian politicians were welcomed in Brussels and Washington. However, today, this goodwill is lacking.

Europe is pestered with domestic problems, which disturb its organized civic life. The EU openly demonstrates its dissatisfaction with the actions of the current Ukrainian leadership and with the results of their incompetent work as well as with their endless requests. The prospective Brexit, the influx of illegal migrants and the constant threat of terrorism, these are of prime interest to Europe today. Ukraine is lacking in this list. So the country can only wait for Europe’s promised advice.

Από την σκοπιά της Λευκωσίας – αν όχι και της Αθήνας – εύλογα τίθεται το εξής ερώτημα: θα είχε πρόβλημα ο Ρώσος ή ο Αμερικανός Πρόεδρος με την Λευκωσία ως φιλοξενούσα πρωτεύουσα για πραγματοποίηση της πρώτης τους συνάντησης; Η απάντηση είναι ουδέν πρόβλημα: η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία είναι ακόμη πιο ουδέτερη κι διπλά αποδεκτή από Μόσχα και Ουάσιγκτον μιας και είναι κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ αλλά όχι του ΝΑΤΟ. Η τελευταία ιδιότητα, η συμμετοχή δηλαδή στην Βορειοατλαντική Συμμαχία, ενίοτε ενοχλεί την Μόσχα, αν και παρατηρούμε ότι στην περίπτωση της Λιουμπλιάνα ο Πούτιν ασμένως έσπευσε να δηλώσει ότι δεν έχει αντίρρηση.

Πριν προλάβω να βάλω την πέννα στο χαρτί για να προτείνω την Λευκωσία για την συνάντηση κορυφής Τραμπ-Πούτιν ξεσπά η αχρείαστη ψυχοφθόρα και ζημιογόνα διαμάχη για θέματα της συγχρόνου ιστορίας μας αυτονόητα και αυταπόδεικτα: η έγκριση της Βουλής και του ΠτΔ για την ενημέρωση (Ν.Β. όχι την επισταμένη έρευνα και εμβριθή μελέτη) μιας καθόλα ιστορικής στιγμής της νεότερης Κύπρου: του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος του 1950. Γιατί ένα απλό θέμα προσφοράς στοιχειώδους ιστορικής γνώσης προς τους εφήβους μας να χρειάζεται ψήφισμα της Βουλής και προεδρική υπογραφή για να εφαρμοστεί; Ποιος ο λόγος ύπαρξης τότε του Υπουργείου Παιδείας; (Ο γράφων έχει εδώ και εικοσαετία αναλύσει αποδεσμευμένες Βρετανικές εκθέσεις επί του θέματος του Δημοψηφίσματος 1950. Δέστε σχετική ανάλυση με τίτλο: Το Ενωτικό Δημοψήφισμα 1950 με Βρετανικά Μάτια: Γνήσια Βούληση του Κυπριακού Λαού http://www.inter-security-forum.org). Φυσικά η υπερβολική αντίδραση του ΤΚ ηγέτη και η αποχώρηση του από την αίθουσα των συνομιλιών κρίνεται ανάξια σχολιασμού.

Το κεφαλαιώδες ερώτημα που τίθεται είναι τι είδους κράτος είμαστε και πώς στεκόμαστε στη διεθνή σκακιέρα; Αυτομειωνόμαστε και υποπίπτουμε σε διεθνή ανυποληψία ενόσω αναλωνόμαστε στα αυτονόητα και στα αυταπόδεικτα αντί να έχομε την προσοχή μας στραμμένη στη επίρρωση του κύρους της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας ως κράτους Ευρωπαϊκού, παράγοντα σταθερότητας στην ταραγμένη μας περιοχή, κράτους διατηρούντος άριστες σχέσεις με τις δυο υπερδυνάμεις όπως και με όλους τους γείτονες πλην βεβαίως της κατοχικής Ισλαμο-Φασιστικής Τουρκίας.

Από πού κι ως πού ο ΠτΔ να αναλώνεται σε πεντασέλιδες εξηγήσεις προς συγκράτηση του αφηνιασμένου Ακιντζί, άθλιου υποχείριου της φασιστικής Άγκυρας του νέο-σουλτάνου Ερντογάν, αντί να αναλαμβάνει ωραίες και λαμπρές διεθνείς πρωτοβουλίες όπως η προαναφερθείσα μιας και διατηρεί προς πίστη του άριστες σχέσεις τόσο με την Ουάσιγκτον όσο και με την Μόσχα; Κύριε Αναστασιάδη όρθωσε διεθνές ανάστημα όπως σού αξίζει, πάψε να αυτοϋποβαθμίζεσαι σε Κοινοτάρχη, πάψε να ρυμουλκήσε από τα Τουρκικά καμώματα και πάρε τον δρόμο τον λαμπρόν της σύζευξης των δύο υπερδυνάμεων στον αγώνα κατά των επί των θυρών ημών Δυνάμεων του Σκότους του Ισλαμικού Κράτους και των προστατών τους συμπεριλαμβανομένης της κατοχικής Τουρκίας. Αυτό επιτάσσει η ιστορική στιγμή!

Throughout the so-called Arab Spring, all reliable organizations, state as well as NGOs issued a worldwide warning for serious risks emanating from jihadist fighters. These extremists rushed out from Europe to the battlefields of the Middle East and then returned back.

However, despite the deadly attacks that happened, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor personally took the decision to welcome unconditionally and without checks over one million of migrants and refugees in the period 2015-16. If to this number at least another million is added which went to Germany between 2012 and 2016 from Italy and other routes, then the total number exceeds of fresh migrants accounts for 3% of the German population.

It is estimated that 50% of those who travelled into Germany have used fictitious names with spurious personal information. Among them entered an unknown number of radicalized extremists and even terrorists. What is worse, substantial internal dispersion within the Schengen area has already taken place: after a short stay on German territory thousands of those [radicalized migrants] moved to neighbouring European countries.

As a result, Merkel’s government disseminated the problem across Europe, causing an economic cost in billions of Euros in addition to increased extremism, terrorism and crime, without ultimately any geopolitical advantage accruing to Berlin.

Furthermore, within Germany itself, this policy helps to reduce the electoral base of the ruling CDU party and contributes to the rapid elimination of its sister CSU party in Bavaria and the rise of AFD in combination with dozens of other civic movements that fight Merkel’s government. Moreover, Merkel’s choices contributed greatly both to the rise of the current that led to the Brexit, as well as to the growth to gigantic proportions of the so-called anti-European forces in France, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and elsewhere.

All EU security services anticipate continuous and massive attacks in the coming period. Now the situation tends to get out of control because the suspects are now so many that the authorities fail to control them: a non-stop 24 hour monitoring of a [suspect] can employ up to 30 security officers, while the Schengen area creates a very wide latitude for unhindered movements. Furthermore, it is not oterrorism which troubles the authorities but also a range of other issues. With the existing limited capacity of the [security & surveillance] authorities there is room for maneuver to forestall potential terrorist threats.

At another level, given Trump’s election in the US, Merkel’s government had the chance to initiate the process of normalization of EU-Russia relations. However, Merkel preferred to intensify the sanctions in 2017, pushing the EU on the sidelines of global developments in view of the US-Russia rapprochement. She also ‘achieved’ to completely remove the EU from playing any role in developments in the Middle East in conjunction with her complete failure to “control” Erdogan and Turkey.

Moreover, the failure of Italy and the fall of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is led by the hand of Merkel, showing in the medium term the way out of the Eurozone for Italy -and other Eurozone member states. At the same Merkel’s policy is not just that of austerity, but also of horrible bureaucracy and endless regulations. Such a policy downgrades the whole of the EU and Germany itself on the international scene.

By 2020, in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita GDP, Germany will be below Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and of course under the US, China, Japan and India, ultimately relegated to the 8th place. Around 2025 Mexico will surpass while South Korea and Turkey will be close to surpassing her. The IMF forecasts that by 2030 Iran will overtake Germany while Thailand will be at the same level.

The above scenarios – ceteris paribus – do not take into account a possible unplanned dismantling of the Eurozone or any other dramatic scenarios. In terms of industrial production, which is supposedly the strongest sector of the German economy, Germany does not account for more than 25% of total EU capacity, only 18% of China’s industrial production and 23% of the US equivalent. The agricultural production in Germany corresponds to 25% of the Russian equivalent, 13% of the US and 40% of the French. Even in the service sector, Germany stands at 1/7 of the US and one quarter of the corresponding Chinese sector.

In general, the alleged leading position of Germany under Merkel’s governance is based on two legs. The first leg is articulated via the control of EU Member States through the continuing “debt crisis” of the Eurozone – beginning with Greece in 2009. The second leg consists of controlling vital sectors of the Brussels bureaucracy through the appointment of hand-picked officials, couple with establishing and controlling of networks which exercise influence on them.

See below some of these German personalities:

Klaus Regling, Chief Executive Officer of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and Managing Director of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

Prof. Dr. Martin Selmayr, Head of European Commission President’s Cabinet Office

Johannes Laitenberger, Director-General of DG Competition

Matthias Ruete, Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs

Walter Radermacher, Director-General of Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, and Chief Statistician of the European Union since 2008.

In accordance with a Bruegel Institute (Brussels based economic think tank) survey, about 20% of key positions in Brussels are settled to Germans, but in higher positions it is even higher. In addition, Germany wields an extensive network that reaches national parliaments and local authorities.

However both these aspects have an approaching expiration date. Year after year Berlin’s debt crisis management simply destroys the national economies of all European countries leading eventually to faster dissolution of the Eurozone but also of the EU while the attempt to control the European Commission after the British exit will cause conflict with France. Paris turns the page in policy making in a few months and will seek vertical upgrading of its role.

In general, the existing model is nearing its end and the start of the Trump administration in the coming months will prepare the ground for the EU’s disintegration as we know it today.

The identification of Merkel with the outgoing political class of the US Democrats (Clinton clan, Qatar, Soros, Eastern European lobbies) was a tragic mistake both for herself and for the longevity of the framework constructed in the last decade.

The only hope for the establishment of long-term stability in the European continent is the structured dismantling and recasting of the Eurozone with a hard core consisting of Northern and Central Europe and with the rest of Member States (MS) using national currencies. This recast should be accompanied with massive deregulation at all levels, less state in all aspects of public life in all MS, serious incentives for the introduction of private sector leadership but also investments on a significant scale. Otherwise the collapse will be reminiscent of the Eastern Bloc collapse in the early 90s.

As an independent think tank, the International Security Forum has been participating in the annual conferences, deliberations and consultative meetings organized by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, The European Network of Independent Think Tanks since its launch in 2011.

In July 2010 with Council Decision 2010/430/CFSP on establishing a European network of independent non- proliferation think tanks in support of the implementation of the EU strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Council of the European Union decided to create a network bringing together foreign policy institutions and research centres from across the EU to encourage political and security-related dialogue and the long-term discussion of measures to combat the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems. EU Council Decision 2014/129/CFSP of the 10th March 2014 “promoting the European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks in support of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” provided support for three further years of EU Non-Proliferation Consortium activity.

The 2016 EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Conference discussed in plenary sessions the following themes:

1. Disarmament & Deterrence – Bridging the Divide
2. The Impact of Technological Change on Security and Non-Proliferation and
3. The Iran Accord One Year On

Special sessions deliberated, inter alia, on the following subjects:

Prospects for Arms Control and Disarmament in the Middle East, The Threat of Non-State Actors, The Role of Conventional Arms Control in Light of Pressing Security Challenges, Combatting the Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Security on the Korean Peninsula, The Future of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Defence – Asia, Middle East and Europe, The Utility of Sanctions in Non-Proliferation Policy.

Dr. Yiorghos Leventis held, at the margins of the conference, a number of private meetings discussing pressing security issues troubling the Eastern Mediterranean – MENA region.

In a whole raft of policy fields the EU needs cooperation with the Russian Federation as much as the other way round. Energy cooperation is paramount. First, the EU imports around a third of its needs in natural gas from Russia. Second, whether certain policy circles in Washington like it or not, Moscow leads the fight in eradicating the Islamic terrorism threat (ISIS) emanating from the Middle East and seeking to spread westwards. The Russian intervention in Syria has proved effective in stemming the horrible growth of the Daesh menace.

Sanctions against Russia over Ukraine were ill conceived and counter-productive in the first place. As time passes, it becomes increasingly transparent that the current administration in Kiev fails to deliver on its Minsk Agreement deliverables. Smaller EU member states, for example Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary have been hit hard in their trade relations with Russia because of the sanctions imposed at the behest of Washington. Unfortunately, Merkel’s administration in Berlin, the EU’s locomotive, irresponsibly drifts along the US in a futile sanctions policy against EU’s main trade partner, rational neighbour, energy provider and natural ally Russia.

The Cypriot Parliament already in July approved a resolution calling for the lifting of the sanctions the European Union has imposed on the Russian Federation. No single vote was cast against this resolution, an indication of the strong support in favour of full normalization of relations with the RF across the political spectrum. The Cypriot MPs who voted in favour of the resolution noted that the sanctions have not helped towards the resolution of the crisis in Ukraine, but rather they have proved to be counterproductive and ineffective.

The resolution calls on the Government “to work within the framework of the European Council for lifting the sanctions imposed by the European Union against the Russian Federation, pointing to the usefulness of dialogue and the need for peaceful cooperation in all fields”.

At the same time, the House of Representatives urges the Cypriot Government to take initiatives and proceed to actions in order to prepare the ground for lifting the sanctions of the Russian Federation regarding exports of Cyprus products to this country. It also decides to take initiatives in the framework of parliamentary diplomacy aiming at the restoration of relations and cooperation between the EU and the RF in all fields.

The Cyprus Parliament “calls on all parties involved in the Ukrainian crisis to continue the political and diplomatic efforts for its peaceful settlement and to fully implement the Minsk Agreement of 12 February 2015”. It stresses the consequences of the crisis in Ukraine on the broader cooperation and development of relations between all states of the European continent.

The resolution underlines that the House of Representatives is “convinced that the sanctions … have proved counterproductive and in no way have helped to solve the crisis in Ukraine”. It recognises that the sanctions imposed by the European Union against the Russian Federation ‘have had a negative effect on the trade and economic relations’ between Cyprus and Russia. It also considers the sanctions as unacceptable and an obstacle to dialogue on the bilateral and multilateral level.

Thus, President Anastasiades arrives in Brussels on Thursday equipped with a strong mandate from the Cypriot people’s representative body to oppose the renewal of the sanctions regime that only seeks to damage relations with the EU’s natural ally at a time that cooperation with Russia is an absolute need in order to defeat the Islamist extremist threat that is engulfing the European continent.

Even as this introduction is being written (early July 2001), the continuing British military presence in Cyprus is once more giving rise to local unrest: a latter-day reminder, if one is needed, of a difficult colonial relationship which exploded into violence in the 1950s and, however indirectly, helped make possible the sadly divided condition of Cyprus today.

Fifteen years down the line the ‘pathbreaking book’, to use Prof. Blinkhorn’s words, is out of print, Cyprus, to be precise, is still dismembered in diverse zones of effective control, whilst Michael Falon, the British Defence Secretary, pays yet another visit to the island accentuating UK’s neo-colonial policy of benefiting from the strategic position of the island without bothering to honour any of its financial and political obligations towards the Cypriots.

Delving into the notorious British colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ would require producing volumes. For those, who care, the British National Archives at Kew are rife with released British Governments’ documents that give evidence to the ‘however indirect’ engineering of the sad division of Cyprus.

In this short article we shall only trace the historical record and pose the questions that arise concerning the UK’s obligations to the enfeebled Republic of Cyprus with respect to the uninterrupted fifty five year use of the military bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the listening post in Ayios Nikolaos, Famagusta, the surveillance station on Mount Troodos to mention but a few of the seemingly endless list of installations and sites ‘retained by the UK’ by virtue of the Treaty of the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (1960) and used without ‘let or hindrance’ by the British Forces ever since.

It is noteworthy that the ‘Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the RoC’ (TOE) concluded between the UK, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus is very detailed in its twelve Articles, the six Annexes, and the host of Exchanges of Notes and Declarations on the rights accorded to the British Forces both within and without the so-called Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs).

By any conceivable standards, the terminology used in the TOE pertains more to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) rather than to a text of a Treaty meant to establish a sovereign state that is the Republic of Cyprus. In order to illustrate this seminal point, let us take a closer look for example at Annex B Part II. Section I, para. 1 stipulates that the UK shall have the right to continue to use, without restriction or interference, the [Retained] Sites in the territory of the RoC listed in Schedule A to this Part of this Annex.

Paragraph 3 of Section 1 says the UK shall have the right to obtain, after consultation with the Government of the RoC, the use of such additional small Sites as the UK may, from time to time, consider technically necessary for the efficient use of its base areas and installations in the Island of Cyprus.

Moreover, the UK authorities shall have the right to exercise complete control within the Sites, including in particular the rights referred to in the succeeding paragraphs …

Most of the hundred and twenty or so pages of the TOE describe in great detail the actual and potential rights of the British military on the land, sea and air space of Cyprus.

Does all the above privileges come at a premium for the UK? Well, the British Government in the words of Selwyn Lloyd, Foreign Secretary undertook to do the following as per his statement in the House of Commons on 1^st February 1960:

Subject to the clearing up of certain financial points, we have offered a grant of £7½ million to be spread over five years, together with £½ million to meet certain Turkish-Cypriot requests which both communities have endorsed. We have offered a loan of up to £2 million for financing an extension of the electricity service in the island. If Cyprus remains in the Commonwealth, she will be eligible for Commonwealth Assistance Loans.

We calculate that the earnings to Cyprus to be derived from the presence of our troops, their families, the work done in the bases, etc., will be between £15 and £20 million a year. For example, about 15,000 Cypriots will have employment within the sovereign base areas. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1960-02-01a.636.2

The grant of £7½ million in 1960 prices was never reached. It was cancelled after the third year (1963) with the British government (conveniently for her) arguing that since the Turkish Cypriots discontinued their participation in the government of the RoC – in fact in gross violation of the Treaty of Establishment and the Treaty of Guarantee, they established separatist parallel administration – the UK discontinues the payment of the promised grant.

In reality this cunning British action, or rather inaction, punished the victim of Turkish separatism, i.e. the Greek majority population of the island. As for Selwyn Lloyd’s claim that 15,000 Cypriots would be employed and that the Bases will overall contribute 15-20 million pounds annually to the Cypriot economy, this was never the case. His House of Commons early statement was misleading to say the least.

What was actually the case was that the Republic of Cyprus suffered a deadly blow as a result of the Turkish invasion of 1974 – for details of the massive losses endured – of up to 70% of output please see our anniversary article below entitled July 1974 – July 2016: Wounds of Barbaric Turkish Invasion Still Unhealed. Britain failed remarkably to take action – as it should have done as a Guarantor Power – to prevent the massive Turkish destruction.

In the world of real politics, the result of late Bulent Ecevit’s visit to London – mid July 1974 – was a foregone conclusion: Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister, by washing his hands in a Pontius Pilatus fashion, effectively gave Ecevit the green light to invade the island; a campaign of terror was unleashed by the invading Turkish Forces on the Greek population that can only be compared today to the ongoing one mounted by Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan against his own population. Wouldn’t good old Harold Wilson know what was bound to happen in Cyprus if he would let the Turks have their own way? Mass murder, rape and unlawful detention of thousands of civilian Greek population – over 1500 persons still missing today? Of course he would! British intelligence was well aware of time honoured Turkish practices. Nevertheless, Wilson let those Turkish atrocities go on in Cyprus, in however an indirect way. He only ordered the British troops stationed in the Bases – which had been enjoying free use of the Cypriot roads and other facilities without paying any compensation for ten years already – to form a defensive block on the northern Dhekelia boundary just to make sure that the advancing Turkish forces would not touch the so called Eastern SBA. And indeed they did not, the Turks stopped short: to this day the ceasefire line is just north of the base boundary.

Britain has a lot to answer on its Cyprus record. With the wounds of the Turkish invasion still felt deep on the Cypriot body, Spyros Kyprianou government tabled the issue of compensation/financial assistance with the new Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher. True to her reputation as Iron Lady, late Lady Thatcher dismissed the factually backed Cypriot claim for a financial grant of 200 million pounds. The relevant Cypriot document was well prepared by then Minister of Finance Andreas Patsalides forwarded to London via the British High Commission in Nicosia. Subsequently, in an official visit to the British capital, the Cypriot high level delegation comprised of President Kyprianou and Foreign Minister Nicos Rolandis – incidentally, the only official still alive who can testify the record – put the 200 million pound claim in direct talks with Margaret Thatcher.

The size of the claim was premised on the 1960 British Government undertaking in the House of Commons that the RoC should be assisted in grants according to its current needs. Consequently, with the wounds of the barbaric Turkish invasion bleeding torrentially, the needs of the RoC to get its feet back on the ground overgrew – with British indirect connivance. The Iron Lady turned down the claim counter-offering a ‘soft loan of only seven million pounds’ as Nicos Rolandis revealed to the author. Distraught, as they had been, the Cypriot leaders sustained another blow, leaving 10 Downing Street empty handed.

The Cypriot claim to a just and long overdue financial grant by the UK for the uninterrupted use of the bases, the host of other military and intelligence related installations on Cypriot soil and in addition the use of land, sea and air routes of the RoC has never been tabled since the 1980 high level meeting in London.

It is high time that the Cypriot government raised again the issue of a grant, which by now even with low estimates of annual compensation, should be running into billions. More so now that the British government of Teresa May is determined to exit the EU following the Brexit referendum.

Cyprus, which stays firmly in the EU, has its own facilities to offer in the CESDP in the region. We shall be addressing this crucial point in the following months.

Sanctions have long been a favorite policy tool of the US administration to fight with its opponents. Currently, they are actively been used by President Barack Obama around the world. For example, against Russia, Iran, North Korea, some African countries. In other words, against all those who refuse to bow before the global hegemon and do not behave on the international scene as the United States would like them to do.

Jack Lew, US Treasurer, has expressed concern that because of the sanctions the capital flows will bypass the United States. It is interesting to note that two years ago, when sanctions against Russia were imposed, none of the American economists were worried. Today, according to experts, the financial flows have already bypassed US, and, apparently, even a complete lifting of sanctions will not bring them back on track.

In fact, such a pessimistic mood of the US Treasurer is evidence that the American elite has recognized the harm sanctions on Russia inflicted on the economy of the United States. Now, the White House is forced to constantly weigh the risks to the US economy.

Another important consequence of the sanctions on Russia has been the growth of anti-American sentiments among European elites. We now witness a clear division between the pro-American and the ‘national’ European elite. Such pattern is observed today in Germany, France and Italy, the countries in which the negative effects of sanctions most impacted.

Today we can say that groveling to US feet cost a big price for Europe. Evidently, Western analysts could not in a proper way predict the eventuality of retaliatory measures from Russia. When Moscow did respond with such measures many EU governments were shocked and even outraged. The question of appropriateness of the sanctions has caused prolonged disputes and contradictions. Europe was caught in the trap of its own rashness.

The conflict with Russia over Ukraine has become for the EU a huge trial, which the latter has been unable to overcome. The fact that the majority of EU member states subjected to transatlantic influence, have advocated for the preservation and continuation of the sanctions policy against Moscow, does not prevent the rest to question the correctness of such a rushed decision.

Internal problems of the Eurozone escalated when Russia introduced an embargo on food imports. Not expecting such a ‘surprise gift’, Europe was not able to do anything about it and launched a broad anti-Russian campaign. First, the dissatisfaction was expressed in Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary: countries which have close economic relations with Russia. Subsequently, in 2015 Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus joined the above mentioned countries expressing their discontent with the state of affairs vis-à-vis Euro-Russian relations.

Moreover, sanctions against Russia helped swell the ranks of Euro-sceptics. In the past two years Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, an opponent of the anti-Russian policy, has mustered a significant part of the French electorate, including Euro-sceptics. To the dismay of many European politicians, Le Pen stands for the development and deepening of cooperation with Russia. She openly supports the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin on a range of issues.

Germany finds itself also in a dire economic condition. Ordinary citizens, businessmen and various politicians are disgruntled at the sanction prone policy of Chancellor Angela Merkel. By all accounts, decline of the prestige of the Chancellor is largely due to her pro-American policy, her confrontation with Russia and her economic austerity measures. Merkel causes dissatisfaction among entrepreneurs who have spent more than twenty years to win the Russian market. Now because of her political whim they have suffered significant losses.

Due to the ban on exports to Russia the losses of European countries amounted so far to €120 billion. This means that about two million jobs are at risk of being lost. As for the loss of the United States, it is estimated to be in the region of $70 billion. The West seems to have dealt itself a wound with estimated financial losses, according to experts, reaching $755 billion.

The drive for sanctions on Russia proved that Western unity is a myth. There is no solidarity or consensus in the EU. As a result, sanctions against Russia have exposed not only the economic, but also the political and social problems in the West. If today the economic consequences mostly hit European satellites of the United States, in the long-term this could pose a threat to the monopoly of American hegemony.