Positions: Antagonistic ... Solution: Uncertain

"Russia should be in no doubt that further military aggression against Ukraine would have massive consequences and severe cost in response."

"We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of any sovereign state to determine its own future."

Group of Seven statement

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and U.S. President Joe Biden during the G7 Summit in Cornwall, United Kingdom in June. The G7 alliance has unanimously warned of consequences if Russia were to attack Ukraine. File Photo by Andrew Parsons/No 10 Downing Street/UPI

A concerted Western response to what American intelligence points out that the Kremlin plans an invasion of Ukraine in the new year, as they steadily mass up to 175,000 Russian troops and military equipment at the border next to Ukraine. It may be difficult to recall that this group was once the G8, when Russia was part of it, before its decision to appropriate for itself the Crimean peninsula with the claim that it always was part of Russia and would remain so, not with Ukraine, despite that Vladimir Putin also claims that Ukraine has always been part of the beating heart of Russia and will remain so.

 

Moscow responded that NATO's expansion into Russia's eastern European sphere of influence contravenes the West assurances to Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Prior to the release of the joint G7 document, the Russian Embassy in London remonstrated that Britain's frequent phrasing of "Russian aggression" during the Liverpool meeting was misleading, designed only to create a 'cause' for the G7 to rally 'round.

"Russia has made numerous offers to NATO on ways to decrease tensions."

"The G7 forum could be an opportunity to discuss them but so far we hear nothing but aggressive slogans."

Russian Embassy statement, London

Russia is concerned with its "red line" which must not be permitted to be crossed. President Putin demanded legally binding security guarantees that further east expansion of NATO, or that it place weapons close to Russian territory be abandoned altogether, with Washington repeatedly responding that no country has the power to veto hopes nurtured by Ukraine to become part of NATO.

President Putin, according to the Kremlin, informed U.S. President Biden that Russian troops are a threat to no other country; Moscow was being demonized for simply moving troops within its own territory. Ingenuous to the Nth degree. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Kremlin, spoke of very serious conceptual variances between Russia and the United States on Moscow's "red lines". A stated understatement. 

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has asserted that Russia does not pose a threat to Ukraine. EPA-EFE/Maxim Shipenkov

The West was trying to turn Ukraine into a "bridgehead against Russia", wrote Mr. Putin in a July article. "It would be no exaggeration to say that the course of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state aggressively oriented against Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of a weapon of mass destruction against us", he wrote.

 

In fact, the meeting was consumed more with a focus toward China and President Xi Jinping's aggressive strategies. It is Beijing's long-term goals that directly impact on the world order as China elbows its way toward recognition as a world power second to none, including the world's sole recognized world power which is unprepared to surrender its unipolar status any time soon. There were "very, very intense discussions especially on China", one official noted.

It is the standoff between Russia, NATO, the United States and now the G7 that is front and centre for now; China in the rear-view mirror. The emphasis for the moment is Russia's plans for Ukraine, which Western powers view through the lens of oppressive military threats meant to intimidate and to bring the country back under Moscow's tender orbit. Despite Ukraine having ousted the Kremlin's previous choice of Russian-linked president of the country in 2014.

"We call on Russia to de-escalate, pursue diplomatic channels and abide by its international commitments on transparency of military activities."

"We reconfirm our support for the efforts of France and Germany in the Normandy Format to achieve full implementation of the Minsk Agreements in order to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine."

Group of 7 statement

Ukrainian President Volodysmyr Zelensky (L) welcomes U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (R) during their meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine in October. EPA-EFE/Presidential Press Service

See No Evil

Members of Azov battalion attend a rally on the Volunteer Day honouring fighters, who joined the Ukrainian armed forces during a military conflict in the country's eastern regions, in central Kiev, Ukraine (credit: GLEB GARANICH/REUTERS)

"If Canada is going to be providing military training to foreign forces, then it is our responsibility to know we are not training neo-Nazis"

"It is our obligation to our Canadian veterans who sacrificed so much defeating fascism in Europe."

Jaime Kirzner-Roberts policy director, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center

"[Our group's members serve at present as officers in Ukraine's military and] have succeeded in establishing co-operation with foreign colleagues from such countries as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, the U.S.A. Germany and Poland."

"[We support] right patriots, nationalists, conservatives and Christians currently defending the streets of Kyiv from [Kyiv Pride event] perverts from the LGBT movement and their left-liberal sympathizers."

Ukraine fascist militia, Centuria

 

"White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world. I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine."

"The State Department should pressure Kiev to dissociate itself with this group and investigate whether any of our weapons or training have already been provided to them,"

"This is just one of many reasons why lawmakers should be concerned about channeling huge amounts of weapons into this volatile conflict zone."

U.S.Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)

"Evidence uncovered in this paper suggests that since 2018, the Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Army Academy (NAA), Ukraine’s premier military education institution and a major hub for Western military assistance to the country, has been home to Centuria, a self-described order of 'European traditionalist' military officers that has the stated goals of reshaping the country’s military along right-wing ideological lines and defending the 'cultural and ethnic identity' of European peoples against 'Brussels’ politicos and bureaucrats'. The group envisions a future where 'European right forces are consolidated and national traditionalism is established as the disciplining ideological basis for the European peoples'."

"The group, led by individuals with ties to Ukraine’s internationally active far-right Azov movement, has attracted multiple members, including current and former officer cadets of the NAA now serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Apparent members have appeared in photos giving Nazi salutes and made seemingly extremist statements online."

Illiberalism Studies Program

A new report from an American university says far-right extremists in Ukraine’s military have bragged they received training from the Canadian Forces and other NATO nations. ANATOLII STEPANOV / AFP/GETTY IMAGES

George Washington University in Washington, D.C. recently published a study out of one of its institutes where social media accounts of the far-right group Centuria in Ukraine were tracked, documenting the fascist group's Ukrainian military members with Nazi salutes as they engage in the promotion of white nationalism, praising Nazi SS units' members. Nostalgia for another time and place where fascism threatened the world order and committed the gravest atrocities against humankind in the mid-20th Century during a time of a global-churning world war.

 

The Ukrainian nationalists militia group Centuria has been active since 2018 at the Hetman Petro Sahaidachy National Army Academy in Ukraine, according to the George Washington University's Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies. Members of Centuria have left their handprint on social media, claiming to have received military training from the Canadian military, as well as having taken part in military exercises with Canada.

This is hugely disturbing news to institutions dedicated to vigilance for the appearance of fascist groups as threats to world stability. The Canadian military was apprised of the presence of neo-Nazis within their own services in the past year and speedily made efforts to root them out, claiming it has no tolerance for fascists operating within its ranks. Organizers with Centuria boasted on social media of their members currently serving as officers in Ukraine's military establishment.

The University of Washington report on their study has been widely read and was of huge interest to the Simon Wiesenthal Center dedicated to fighting fascism in memory of the institutional state obliteration of six million Jewish lives during the Holocaust years taking place within the theatre of the Second World War. The Center for Holocaust Studies wrote to the Acting Chief of the Canadian Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre and to Canada's Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan asking them to launch an investigation.

It is the Simon Wiesenthal's position that the Canadian Forces should conduct an investigation to determine whether its troops have been involved in training neo-Nazis in Ukraine and to further devise a way to make certain military instruction through Canadian Forces' auspices do not reoccur. The response from the Canadian Forces was to advise that Ukraine must vet its own security forces; the Canadian military is not proactively engaged in determining backgrounds of foreign trainees, nor do they search out support for far-right groups.

Ukraine's government denies the very existence of Centuria. The hands-off approach of the Canadian military has understandably failed to quell the unease of the protesting Wiesenthal Center. In 2015 when the decision was reached to send Canadian troops to Ukraine, the then-Canadian defence minister was aware of the likely presence of far-right extremists in the Ukraine military and discussions were led on avoidance in training extremists.

The decision was reached to stipulate that units of the Ukrainian National Guard exclusively would be trained, avoiding the training opportunities that some ad hoc militias that had appeared in Ukraine at that time, seeking to take opportunities for themselves would be avoided. The Canadian defence critic MP Jack Harris however, gave warning that far-right groups were integrating themselves into the Ukraine military and the difficulty that would ensue attempting to isolate extremists.

A new report from an American university says far-right extremists in Ukraine’s military have bragged they received training from the Canadian Forces and other NATO nations. Photo by ANATOLII STEPANOV /GETTY

The Art of the Trumpian Deal

"We're starting negotiations with Canada, pretty much immediately. If they'd like to negotiate fairly, we'll do that."
"If not, the easiest thing we can do is to tariff their cars coming in ... It could end in one day and we take in a lot of money the following day."
"This is a tremendous thing. They used to call it NAFTA, we're gonna call it the United States-Mexico trade agreement. We'll get rid of the name NAFTA, has a bad connotation because the United States was hurt very badly by NAFTA for many years."
"It's an incredible deal [the U.S.-Mexico agreement], it's an incredible deal for both parties.We'll start negotiating with Canada relatively soon."
U.S. President Donald J. Trump

"This [protecting of intellectual property] would require a significant overhaul of Canadian intellectual property law." 
"These provisions ... are at odds with the Canadian government's commitment to modern intellectual property laws that adequately balance the interests of all stakeholders [as with adding years of patent protection from generic drug competition]."
Michael Geist, intellectual property expert, University of Ottawa

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland arrives at the Office Of The United States Trade Representative, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2018, in Washington.Andrew Harnik / ASSOCIATED PRESS

The simple fact is, negotiating a fair and mutually useful agreement on free trade with the three partners representing two supplicants and one powerful bully, the prospect of fairness becomes a lost cause. When the balance of power is held unevenly it represents a big stick to wallop the weaker links in a three-way deal with. Where the U.S. yielded in some areas in the original NAFTA agreement, that time is long gone; now the reality is that the one with that big stick is prepared to use it, as a very effective 'negotiating' device.

Beginning with the unexpected U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, and going on, in Canada's case, to target lumber, along with other vulnerable items, even if it ends up hurting American consumers as much as it does Canadian producers. Donald Trump may wax threatening about fairness, when he demands that Canada's Supply Management System be dropped -- an antiquated, anti-consumer farm monopoly that should be rethought -- but it has been repeatedly and pointedly observed that the U.S. has its own farm subsidies more than equal to Canada's.

None of the three major political parties in Canada is prepared to submit on the demand to dissolve supply management; there's too much political interest, as in danger, at stake, in the form of critical votes from a well-oiled lobby group. The Dairy Farmers of Canada, as an example, is not above using the threat of political boycott for any party that seriously considers abolishing the dairy supply management. Its threatening overtures ensures that none of the parties would dare speak to the issue in a conciliatory tone to NAFTA.

At the just-concluded Conservative Party of Canada's annual conference a briefing book produced by the Dairy Farmers of Canada was discovered by the press amplifying the extent of their influence, as when it warns that "Members of the Conservative Party of Canada have sent a clear signal that they do not support Canadian farmers" and "Canadians will remember the position taken by Conservatives today". There was no clear signal, no committed position, not even a discussion on the agenda relating to supply management; the issue was deftly set aside; dead in the water.

But had it not been, and the conference had that debate with a majority deciding that their party would do well to scrap supply management, the little book of instructions cautioned the Conservative Leader not to forget the power vested in his position: "The powers of the Leader are far-reaching in preventing a policy from being in the party platform. DFC has been told by the Leader's office that he will exercise this power ... regardless of the outcome at convention." There's the lobby telling the party how it will act; the party indebted to the vote.

Well, Justin Trudeau has an interesting decision to make. The Liberal Party is firm that this is a non-negotiable issue. And "Canada will not be pushed around". If the farm lobby cannot depend on the Liberals, they can't depend on any party. Oh, yes, of course, the New Democrats; and how likely are they to form government -- heaven forfend. It is a desperate situation when a three-party agreement deliberately cuts out one of the three. Six weeks of negotiations took place between the U.S. and Mexico, Canada clearly informed its presence not only unneeded but unwanted.

The idea being, as senior U.S. trade negotiator Robert Lighthizer noted confidently, to strike an agreement with the slightly more malleable Mexican negotiators and when it's done, allow Canada to enter the negotiations with the knowledge that the U.S. is prepared to conclude a bilateral deal without Canada, and leave Canada out entirely, if they feel the need to do so. Canada cannot afford not to sign on to a renewal of NAFTA; the U.S. represents its trade lifeboat; the U.S. doesn't need trade, Canada does. This is indeed the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Accede to U.S. demands that supply management be dissolved to please Trump, and the Liberals limp, defeated into the October 2019 election. Refuse to drop supply management and retain the dignity of making one's own sovereign decisions over the value placed in Canadian-made internal agreements -- almost all other nations, including the U.S. commit to agricultural subsidies of some sort, to ensure self-reliance on national self-sufficiency of the necessities of life-sustenance -- and the Liberals eat humble pie while the Canadian economy tumbles and the voting public takes its revenge.

No sleeping easy in Ottawa for the next five days, the time-frame the U.S. has given Canada to make up its mind whether it is serious about concluding a deal with its Mexican and U.S. free trade partners. This is one very large lemon to suck on.

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer leaves the Office Of The United States Trade Representative, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2018, to walk to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, in Washington, ahead of Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. Canada, America’s longtime ally and No. 2 trading partner, was left out of a proposed deal Trump just reached with Mexico and is scrambling to keep its place in the regional free-trade bloc. Andrew Harnik / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Putin's Omelette

"The Russians are rushing to create a fait accompli on the ground before Trump gets to the White House."
Bassma Kodmani, leader, High Negotiations Council, Syria

"For twenty years, people basically ignored Russia on the Middle East."
"The Russian role in the region now will certainly increase."
Robert Ford, (former) U.S. ambassador to Syria

Russia's President Vladimir Putin at the Moscow Kremlin ahead of his annual address to the Russian Federal Assembly on December 1, 2016 in Moscow, Russia. (Metzel Mikhail/TASS/Zuma Press/TNS) 

"Moscow believes it now has the opportunity and time to make critical gains in Syria. Russian airstrikes in Idlib and Homs provinces as well as the Syrian army offensive in Aleppo seem to be building in this line of reasoning. At the same time, this shouldn’t contradict other Russian moves  — with an overall decrease in anti-American rhetoric, more attacks on the Islamic State and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, and prospects for the deterrent built by the Russians in Syria to be a potential bargaining chip with the new [U.S.] administration."
"At the same time, the military offensives are set to bring more rebel groups to direct talks with the Russian military. According to the Bulletin of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in the Syrian Arab Republic on Nov. 19, within the previous 24 hours 'truce agreements were signed with representatives of three inhabited areas of Hama province and two in Latakia province.' Thus, the total number of inhabited areas whose leaders had signed the so-called reconciliation agreements now amounts to 956, while the number of cease-fire application forms signed with leaders of armed groups has reached 69. Finally, another track Moscow is pursuing is consultations with Iran and Turkey on strategic aspects of Syrian statehood, such as the country’s integrity. Both Tehran and Ankara favor the idea of a united Syria — though each for their own interests and with specific visions for it. Nevertheless, it is important for Russia to find itself on the same page with the regional stakeholders on the critical issues before the situation in Syria is transformed into a postwar diplomatic mode."
Maxim A. Suchkov, editor, Al-Monitor’s Russia-Mideast

A member of the Syrian civil defence volunteers, known as the White Helmets, stands on the rubble of destroyed buildings during a rescue operation following an airstrike on the rebel-held neighbourhood of Bustan al-Basha

Photograph: Thaer Mohammed/AFP/Getty Images

The American president-elect has elected to get into bed, as it were, in a fairly crowded bedroom where Iran, Russia and Turkey have already claimed for themselves the choicest resting places, but are prepared to shift over and welcome Donald Trump to make it a quartet. Not that the U.S. would be interested in sending its warplanes over Aleppo to help Russia and the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad pound the living hell out of the several hundred-thousand Syrian Sunnis remaining there.

Mr. Trump has identified the Syrian regime as small potatoes to the U.S., far more concerned about Islamic State, and where the U.S. has set its sights. Russia and Syria too have claimed that destroying the ISIL presence in Syria is top of mind for them, even though the subjects of their aerial bombardments have largely been the "terrorists" representing Syrian Sunni rebels' intention to see that Sunnis are treated equally to the status that Syria's Shiite Alawites have enjoyed under the al-Assad dynasty of Murder Incorporated.

 

US President Barack Obama talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting, Lima, Peru, Nov. 20, 2016. (photo by REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

It seems, on the surface, that the incoming president is concerned with reversing all the executive orders of the currently-sitting president, to leave Barack Obama with no legacy untouched by what Mr. Trump believes to be a far more discerning, deft hand determined to return America to its place in the world order. And to do that, it seems, he is willing to share status as a super-power with Russia, to see Washington and Moscow once again trading not barbs but cool diplomacy.

But it cannot be denied that Donald Trump's remarkable ascension is giving Vladimir Putin a real leg up on his determination to rebuild Russia's influence and power in the Middle East, re-establishing Russia in the region as a power to be reckoned with. One that has no compunction whatever in bombing heavily civilian areas in Aleppo, for example, well beyond the crushed civic state that already exists, to completely demoralize the "terrorist" Sunni Syrians rebelling against their tyrant, in the greater interests of restoring calm and civility to a crushed population.

 

Convincing opposition leaders and militia chiefs that surrender will gain them a place at the bargaining table, instead of accomplishing their fervent desires to demolish the Assad regime. In the interests of preserving as many civilian lives as they can from the threat of extinction, there are times when even the most tenaciously determined must admit that surrendering their purpose to a half-measure will accomplish some portion of success. So reaching some measure of self-determination holds out hope for Syria's Sunnis.

 

"Trump's election opens a new page that can put an end to this bloody war", stated Randa Kassis, a Syrian political opposition leader, preparing for a position within a power-sharing arrangement held out by Vladimir Putin as a potential solution to the intransigent blood-letting. It seems fairly far-fetched that Bashar al-Assad would assent to this Russian initiative. She has already met with Donald Trump Jr. and is now set to fly to Moscow for discussions with its Mideast envoy.

 

Even as the United Nations wrings its hands helplessly in dismay at the continued bombardment of eastern Aleppo, the desperation of the people besieged within that portion of the rebel-held city with starvation looming large, along with a lack of medical services with the destruction of all its hospitals, courtesy of the accuracy of Syrian and Russian bombing missions, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution proposing a 7-day truce to enable humanitarian access.

Like day and night, the Umayyad Mosque of Aleppo, built between the 8th and 13th centuries, is one of many historic sites left in charred ruins after heavy fighting  Photo: Carlo Ohanian/Olympia

The rebels' cause may be hopefully, naively just, and the regime represent a callously indifferent tyranny but it has its friends at court in Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran and in Moscow, helping both to fulfill their own regional aspirations. That Vladimir Putin has not hesitated to make common cause with Iran is a more than adequate glimpse into the black heart of another dictator whom the West politely names an autocratic ruler. To complete the symbiotic trifecta, there is Ankara cultivating Moscow and Tehran.

Vladimir Putin takes his natural place as the towering figure leading the Syrian regime out of the rancid witches' brew it has made of its country. Discarding the simmering black pot of sectarian blight, the Russian strongman is busy preparing his own version of a banquet, an omelette that will feed the concatenation of interests, while breaking a substantial number of eggs to hasten the process; Syria is just the first course.

Children play with water from a burst waterpipe at a site hit by an airstrike in Aleppo’s rebel-controlled al-Mashad neighbourhood   

Photograph: Abdalrhman Ismail/Reuters

How the Donors Saved Hamas

by Khaled Abu Toameh
October 14, 2014 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4776/hamas-donors

Rebuilding or repairing infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is the best thing that could have happened to Hamas. Hamas knows that every dollar invested in the Gaza Strip will serve the interests of the Islamist movement. The promised funds absolve Hamas of all responsibility for the catastrophe it brought upon the Palestinians during the confrontation with Israel.
Hamas will now use its own resources to smuggle in additional weapons and prepare for the next war with Israel. Hamas can now go back to digging new tunnels and obtaining new weapons instead of assisting the Palestinians whose homes were destroyed as a result of its actions.
The biggest mistake the donor states made was failing to demand the disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for funneling aid to the Gaza Strip. Hopes that the catastrophic results of the confrontation would increase pressure on Hamas, or perhaps trigger a revolt against it, have faded.

It would be naïve to think that Hamas would not benefit from the billions of dollars that have just been promised to help with the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, during a donor conference in Cairo.
The Palestinians were hoping for $4 billion, but the donor states pledged $5.4 billion, half of which will be "dedicated" to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, according to Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende.

It is not yet clear how the second half will be spent.

Qatar, a longtime supporter and funder of Hamas, promised $1 billion, while US Secretary of State John Kerry announced immediate American aid of $212 million. The European Union, for its part, pledged $568 million.

Who decides whose aid money is used for terror tunnels and weapons, and whose aid money towards humanitarian aid? Above, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah at the Gaza Donors Conference in Cairo, Oct. 12, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

Donor states said they would funnel the aid only through the Palestinian Authority [PA]. But this does not mean that Hamas, which continues to maintain a tight grip on the Gaza Strip, would fail to benefit from the financial aid.

In fact, any funds earmarked for the Gaza Strip will strengthen Hamas, even if the money is coming through the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas has agreed to put aside its differences with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his ruling Fatah faction in order to pave the way for the international community to allocate billions of dollars towards the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas even welcomed the PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah when he visited the Gaza Strip last week.

In recent weeks, Hamas had accused Hamdallah and his government of failing to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in wake of Israel's Operation Protective Edge. Hamas had also accused the Hamdallah government and Mahmoud Abbas of ordering a security crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank.

Hamdallah's visit to the Gaza Strip came on the eve of the Cairo donor conference; that is why Hamas was prepared to receive him and his ministers in the Gaza Strip. Hamas did not want the donor states to withhold the funds under the pretext that the Palestinians were still fighting among each other and unable to get their act together.

Hamas knew that this was the only way to persuade the donor states to approve billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip. The show of "unity" between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas was mainly intended to show the donors that they should not worry about their money ending up in the wrong hands.

After all, Hamas also knows that every dollar invested in the Gaza Strip will serve the interests of the Islamist movement. Of course, this is excellent news for Hamas.

First, the promised funds absolve Hamas of any responsibility for the catastrophe it brought upon the Palestinians during the confrontation with Israel.

Now the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip will no longer be asking Hamas to compensate them for the loss of their houses and family members. Any Palestinian who asks Hamas for financial aid will, as of now, be referred to the PA or the donor states.

Hopes that the catastrophic results of the confrontation would increase pressure on Hamas or perhaps trigger a revolt against it have faded now that the PA and the donor states have become the address for distributing financial aid.

Second, the talk about rebuilding or repairing infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is the best thing that could have happened to Hamas. The funds promised by the donor states will help rebuild various Hamas-controlled installations in the Gaza Strip, such as ministries, security bases, universities, mosques and charities. The infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is almost entirely controlled, directly and indirectly, by Hamas.

All investment in the Gaza Strip's infrastructure will ultimately serve Hamas's interests, even if such work is being carried out by the Palestinian Authority.

Third, Hamas members and supporters would be among those entitled to some of the money coming from the Western and Arab donors. The Palestinian Authority would find it impossible to hand out money only to Abbas loyalists in the Gaza Strip, having already promised to take care of all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, regardless of their political affiliations.

Four, the financial aid has not been conditioned on Hamas laying down its weapons or even ceding control over the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. From now, the PA will be working toward rebuilding the Gaza Strip while Hamas will use its own resources to smuggle in additional weapons and prepare for the next war with Israel. This seems to be the agreed division of responsibilities between Hamas and the PA.

Five, there is no guarantee that the billions of dollars would have a moderating effect on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip or turn them away from Hamas. Some Palestinians are even worried that the international community might be trying to bribe the PA to stop it from pursuing plans to seek unilateral UN recognition of a Palestinian state. Others believe the promised funds are intended to stop the PA from signing the Rome Statute as a first step toward joining the International Criminal Court, in order to file "war crimes" charges against Israel.

The Palestinians are nevertheless willing to accept the billions of dollars. But that does not mean that they will refrain from voting for Hamas in a future election. Nor does this mean that they are going to make any concessions or moderate their demands, first and foremost the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to Israel.

The decisions made at the Cairo donor conference constitute a big victory for Hamas. Hamas can now go back to digging new tunnels and obtaining new weapons, instead of helping the Palestinians whose lives and homes were destroyed as a result of its actions. The biggest mistake the donor states made was failing to demand the disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for funnelling aid to the Gaza Strip. The donors have not only saved Hamas; they have emboldened it, allowing it to stay around for many more years.

Related Topics:  Palestinian Authority  |  Khaled Abu Toameh

The Russian Bear's Tight Squeeze

"In the wake of continued aggression by Russia, which includes the ongoing supply of logistical support and weapons systems to agents of the Putin regime in eastern Ukraine, Canada is announcing its intent to once again increase economic and political pressure, in the coming days, by imposing additional sanctions on the regime and those closest to it."
"President Putin's failure to end his support to armed rebel groups constitutes a very real threat to international peace and security. His actions represent an overt, direct threat to the Ukrainian people and its rightfully elected government,"
Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Ottawa, Canada

"Russia is once again isolating itself from the international community, setting back decades of progress. It does not have to be this way. We can't, in the end, make President Putin see more clearly; ultimately that's something President Putin has to do on his own."
U.S. President Barack Obama

"Furthermore, when the violence created spirals out of control and leads to the killing of almost 300 innocent civilians in their flight from the Netherlands to Malaysia, the situation requires urgent and determined response."
 "[The 28-nation bloc means to send a] strong warning [to President Putin that the] illegal annexation [of Crimea and Russia's destabilization of Ukraine cannot be tolerated]."
Herman Van Rompuy, EU president, Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission president

Europe's capital markets, EU citizens and banks will now be barred from buying bonds or stocks issued by state-owned Russian banks in an effort to restrict Russia's access to Europe's capital markets. For its part, the U.S. sanctioned three Russian banks; VTB Bank, Bank of Moscow, and the Russian Agricultural Bank; along with a state-owned shipbuilder. Credits encouraging exports to Russia have been suspended, and the export of certain goods to Russia's oil and gas industry have been prohibited.

The new European sanctions will include an arms embargo on Moscow along with a ban on the sale of technology that could have dual military and civilian use, or is of a sensitive nature, such as advanced equipment used for deep-sea and Arctic oil drilling. Europe has hesitated to embark on tougher sanctions, more highly dependent on its trade relationship with Russia, for fear of harming their own economies and with a view to their gas dependence on Russia.

Germany imports one-third of its gas from Russia. France has decided to proceed with its contract to deliver two high-value warships to Russia. "Unlike the Americans, we always have to get 28 countries together. And the interests are very different. All the same, I think that we -- at the latest with the shooting down of this plane -- have a situation in which we cannot simply carry on in the same way", explained Sigmar Gabriel, the German vice-chancellor and economy minister.

American authorities state they expect Europe's list of targets to include some of the same energy companies, defence suppliers and financial institutions hit with sanctions by the Obama administration even before the Malaysian airliner had been shot down from the sky over Ukraine. President Putin's obduracy may continue; there are rumours in certain circles that the Kremlin has decided to give permission for Russian forces to enter Ukraine.

If so, Russia will have completely isolated itself and earned the umbrage -- with an emphasis on outrage and disappointment -- of the rest of Europe and North America. As its already-embattled economy slowly disintegrates and Russian citizens find themselves no longer so willing to admire and encourage their belligerent president to continue raising the outraged hackles of other world leaders.

Peace and Good Fellowship

"Instead of moving into peace with Israel, he's moving into peace with Hamas. He has to choose. Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel? You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace, so far he hasn't done so."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

"[If Hamas does join a Palestinian unity government] they would probably allow Abbas to continue talking to Israel while insisting as they have in the past that any agreements require approval from the Palestinian public in a referendum."
Mark Heller, research fellow, Institute for National Security Studies, tel Aviv University

Photo AP/ Ynet

"I cannot find any sort of strategic bridge between these two players. The Palestinians will be in a very serious problem, not only with Israel but with the Americans and the Europeans as well."
"The ideological gaps, the political gaps and the cultural gaps [between Hamas and Fatah remained too distantly opposing for reconciliation.]"
Kobi Michael, former head, Palestinian desk, Israel's strategic affairs ministry

Funding that the Palestinian Authority depends upon from the United States could be imperilled by this move; the administration has hinted as much, and it seems logical enough that the PA representing Fatah has earned a clean bill of health with the Americans, but Hamas, whose charter reads the destruction of Israel leading to the restoration of the entire geography to Palestinians is considered a terrorist group.

The European Union, which has declared a fine distinction between the Hamas 'political' wing and the Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem (terrorist wing of Hamas) will find themselves able to accommodate to the situation of a reunified Fatah-Hamas PA co-jointly administering the affairs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rather than cut off funding to them.

Of course the larger question is whether the much-ballyhooed reconciliation will actually bond. Since there have been previous such celebrated gestures which never did solidify to actual reality, and the distance between the two Palestinian 'governments' remained an issue of concern. When Hamas undertook the violent initiative to seize Gaza from Fatah in 2007 its actions were not those of a friendly competitor.

Their base ideology differs, although their shared hatred for Israel does not. Their methodology placed them at odds with one another; Hamas openly stating and acting out its viral opposition to the existence of a Jewish state on what it maintains is land dedicated to Islam and the Palestinians. And Fatah presenting to the world at large a partner for peace, willing to accept a two-state solution while instigating behind-the-scenes for Palestinian-ears-only incitements to violence.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas insists both sides are on the cusp of forming an interim government with presidential and parliamentary elections to be held "at the earliest six months after forming the government", for which he has been assured, he can remain president. While Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Hamas government of Gaza stated "We agreed on a timetable to end the split", splitting into a wide grin of self-congratulation.

There is the simple fact of economics behind much of these theatrics. Hamas is starved for funding. Its lifeline of financial support through the Islamic Republic of Iran was cut due to disagreements relating to the Syrian regime's attacks on Sunni Syrians. And with the removal of the Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi, Hamas's funding from that source was also struck, combined with its identification in Egypt as a terror group. Qatar's one-time magnanimity has never been repeated.

Hamas's cozying up to Fatah will ensure it can at least share more heavily in the funding the PA receives from all its traditional sources, including the United Nations. That it will not because the funding it withheld will no doubt result in the dissolution of the bonding ceremony. Unless the PA pulls back with the realization that it too will stand to lose some of the funding it relies upon, belying its insistence that it is prepared to present to the world as an independent state, one that is incapable of funding itself.

Moving Forward ... ?

"We have to admit that our life now is almost like ... a war. We have to cope with an aggression that we do not understand."
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deschytsya

"[Lawlessness] now rules in eastern regions of Ukraine as a result of the actions of fighters of the so-called 'Right Sector', with the full connivance' of Ukraine's new authorities."
Russian Foreign Ministry

Ukrainians at a rally outside the parliament building in Kiev on the day Viktor Yanukovych reappeared in Russia, saying he was still the nation's president. Photograph: Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP

The Right Sector represents several far-right, nationalist factions. Their actions were the most violently radical and confrontational during the three-month-long demonstrations that took place in Kyiv. Which succeeded eventually in removing president Viktor Yanukovych from power, in a play that had him fleeing the capital for a safer haven in Crimea.

According to the Kremlin, Ukrainian officials at the border between the two countries have been turning back Russian citizens attempting to enter Ukraine. And in a sign of possible further aspirations, Ukrainian concerns that Russia might continue its friendly invasion into a brotherly country to take advantage of Russian sentiment running high in the east of Ukraine; it too might suddenly become incorporated into Russia.

Ukrainians hold a demonstration in support of a unified Ukraine in the Crimean city of Bakhchisaray. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty 
 
Purely to rescue the east from succumbing to utter lawlessness. Where the need to protect Russian and Russian-speaking civilians becomes a paramount duty of the Kremlin, responding to the urgency of the situation, in a purely honourable move to prove its reliability as a big brother to a neighbourly country in need of support. If east Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula are too cumbersome for Ukraine to manage, Russia is there to assist.

The United States too, is eager to help the situation mend itself to the satisfaction of all concerned. President Obama picked up his White House telephone to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Bejing, after all, speaks continually of unwillingness to intervene in the affairs of other nations. And here is its veto-wielding Security Council partner playing the heavy in the affairs of a neighbour. President Xi will doubtless be unmoved, concentrating on neutrality. While appreciative of the effort.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose immense wealth Vladimir Putin looted in payment for the insolence of challenging his power by an oligarch who didn't leave well enough alone and threatened to become too political, now freed from prison, speaks his mind: "The question of Crimea's fate is very painful both for Ukrainians and for Russians. It's not just a simple territorial dispute for some extra square kilometres."

As this Ukrainian-language map illustrates, Ukrainian and Russian share overlap with Surzhyk (Yellow – West: Russian: 3.1%, Surzhyk: 2.5%, Ukrainian: 94.4%; Yellow – center Russian: 24.2%; Surzhyk: 14.6%; Ukrainian: 61.2%; Bright green – east-center: Russian: 46.4% Surzhyk: 21.7% Ukrainian: 31.9%; Teal – east Russian: 86.8% Surzhyk: 9.6% Ukrainian: 3.7%; Teal – south Russian: 82.3%; Surzhyk: 12.4%; Ukrainian: 5.2%). Wikimedia 
 
No, it is not. It is fealty, loyalty to the Russian Federation that is at stake here. Along with President Putin's desire to actualize a new federation of states with himself at the helm of a powerful political-economic bloc to challenge the European Union and the United States. Consider this a counterpart to the past when President Kennedy panicked at the thought of the U.S.S.R. placing atomic weapons in the American bailiwick of Cuba.

What's panic for the goose is the same for the gander, with NATO and the U.S. planning missile silos in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin expressed his unease and anger often enough for the message to penetrate. The eagle assured the bear repeatedly that those silos were not pointed toward Moscow, but toward, let's see ... Tehran. It seems the bear withheld credulity. And sulking, nursed its grievance.