BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JULY 13, 2023 

The hypothesis that the Anglo-Saxon axis is pivotal to the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is only partly true. Germany is actually Ukraines second largest arms supplier, after the United States. Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged a new arms package worth 700 million euros, including additional tanks, munitions and Patriot air defence systems at the NATO summit in Vilnius, putting Berlin, as he said, at the very forefront of military support for Ukraine. 

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius stressed, By doing this, were making a significant contribution to strengthening Ukraines staying power. However, the pantomime playing out may have multiple motives. 

Fundamentally, Germanys motivation is traceable to the crushing defeat by the Red Army and has little to do with Ukraine as such. The Ukraine crisis has provided the context for accelerating Germanys militarisation. Meanwhile, revanchist feelings are rearing their head and there is a bipartisan consensus between Germanys leading centrist parties CDU, SPD and Green Party in this regard. 

In an interview in the weekend, the CDUs leading foreign and defence expert Roderich Kiesewetter (an ex-colonel who headed the Association of Reservists of the Bundeswehr from 2011 to 2016) suggested that if conditions warrant in the Ukraine situation, NATO should consider to cut off Kaliningrad from Russian supply lines. We see how Putin reacts when he is under pressure. Berlin is still smarting under the surrender of the ancient Prussian city of Knigsberg in April 1945. 

Stalin ordered 1.5 million Soviet troops supported by several thousand tanks and aircraft to attack the crack Nazi Panzer divisions deeply entrenched in Knigsberg. The capture of the heavily fortified stronghold of  Knigsberg by the Soviet army was celebrated in Moscow with an artillery salvo by 324 cannons firing 24 shells each.  

Evidently, Kiesewetters remarks show that nothing is forgotten or forgiven in Berlin even after 8 decades. Thus, Germany is the Biden Administrations closest ally in the war against Russia. The German government has stated its understanding for the Biden administrations controver...

Ever since May 2023, when the 14-member Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) reached an agreement on strengthening the resilience of supply chains a crucial aspect of the frameworks second pillar an intense debate has been ignited within academia and media regarding its feasibility. For obvious reasons, scholars and commentators have delved into the potential ramifications and explored various perspectives on the matter. Some have scrutinized the practicality of implementing the agreement, while others have examined the potential economic and geopolitical implications it may entail. While the final text of the IPEF Supply Chain Agreement is yet to be unveiled to the media, initial indications have partially revealed its main features, suggesting the creation of comprehensive regulations and institutional mechanisms. The success of this agreement hinges on its implementation, with a particular focus on delineating tangible measures and possibly establishing specialized projects to propel further advancements.

Launched by US President Joe Biden in May 2022 during a Quad Summit in Tokyo, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is a coalition of 14 member countries including India, Australia, Brunei, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IPEFs declared objective is to establish a shared framework based on four key pillars: connectivity and digital trade, resilient supply chains, clean energy, and corruption-free fair trade. But the IPEF is generally viewed as the United States strategic response to its perceived retreat from the Asia-Pacific region during the Trump era, symbolized by the withdrawal from the ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Evidently, the IPEF is an assertive move by the Biden administration to counter Chinas increasing sway in the Indo-Pacific region. With the IPEF, the United States aims to expand its economic leadership in the region while advancing its foreign policy and economic interests. Through strategic partnerships with member countries, Washington seeks to enhance the development of supply chains and promote regional connectivity in both physical and digital realms. In doing so, the United States hopes to solidify its position as a dominant economic force in the Indo-Pacific region, asserting its influence and securing its long-term economic and strategic objectives.

As per media reports, the proposed agreement has suggested the establishment of three bodies: a Supply Chain Council, a Supply Chain Crisis Response Network, and a Labor Rights Advisory Board. Additionally, the United States has pledged to initiate technical assistance and capacity-building programs, such as digital shipping pilot projects and an IPEF STEM Exchange Program. Nevertheless, the global response from th...

F.M. Shakil New Delhis inclination towards the Atlanticist core contradicts its position as a self-reliant economic and military force, and hinders its aspirations for Eurasian integration through collaboration with China and Russia. In an era marked by shifting geopolitical dynamics and strategic realignments, Indias evolving role as a supplying and maintenance agent for the US...

Saudi Arabia, UAE send Pakistan billions of dollars as it secures IMF deal

Israeli esports team sings national anthem and lifts flag in Saudi Arabia

Israel-Lebanon: Hezbollah members 'wounded' in explosion at border

 Two stern warnings must be given to the arrogant NATO: Global Times editorial

Global Times Editorial

July 12, 2023: Information Clearing House -- The NATO summit is being held in Vilnius, Lithuania, from Tuesday to Thursday. The meeting focuses on plans to "counter the threat" from Russia, including discussions on NATO's expansion and Ukraine's future membership to NATO. Meanwhile, NATO's strategic impulse to meddle in the Asia-Pacific region is also imminent at this summit. Expanding cooperation with the four "Asia-Pacific partners" - Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand - is another major topic of the summit. In this regard, the US media boldly stated that NATO is trying to "deter China's strategic ambitions."

This is the second year that Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand have been invited to the NATO summit. In order to firmly rope in these four countries, NATO imitated the "Quad" mechanism of the US, Japan, India and Australia at last year's summit, and specially created a new name for these four countries called "Asia-Pacific Four (AP4)." This aims to institutionalize the cooperation between these four countries and NATO, and make them de facto new allies of "NATO+" in the Asia-Pacific region. According to sources, the joint statement to be issued in Vilnius will change the name of AP4 to "Indo-Pacific Four (IP4)," which is undoubtedly more in line with Washington's tone.

There are 31 NATO members, but they have never been monolithic and have different views on many international issues. However, they are in general dominated by the will of the US. Now they have been kidnapped by the panic and tension instigated by the US, becoming "Washington's axe, spears and shovels." Wherever NATO goes, wars are likely to break out. These are not only the subjective impressions left by NATO, but also objective facts to a large extent. This situation is actually more worthy of the high vigilance of those member states within NATO that have no intention of being pa...

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | July 11, 2023

There is growing speculation about how the Russia-Ukraine war might eventually end. Three competing scenarios are strong possibilities. The most likely outcome is a definitive Russian victory after a grinding, bloody struggle lasting several more years. As time drags on, Russias larger population and military will confer greater and greater advantages in the fighting, despite the lumbering, inefficient nature of the Kremlins forces.

The second most likely outcome is a frozen conflict roughly along the current battle lines. Fighting would end with an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty and reflect exhaustion on the part of both Ukraine and Russia. Such frozen conflicts already exist in places such as Kashmir, Cyprus, and most notably, Korea.

The least likely outcome would be a definitive victory by Ukraine, given Russias long-term logistical advantages. Unfortunately, both Washington and NATO have embraced that unrealistic objective, pledging continued Western military support and encouraging Kiev to stay the course, regardless of the mounting costs in blood and treasure to the Ukrainian people.

No matter how the war finally ends, the Biden administration and its NATO partners appear to have given surprisingly little consideration to what the Wests postwar relationship with Moscow willor shouldlook like. Robert E. Hunter, a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, touched on one important aspect in his recent article in Responsible Statecraft. He contended that there are more important issues than Ukraines NATO membership aspirations that need to be discussed at the 2023 NATO summit. More consequential for the long term is an issue that wont arise at Vilnius: what role Russia can play in European security after the war is over.

Hunter points out the crucial reality that unless Russia disintegrates, at some point in the future it will have to be dealt with as a revived great power, which under any leader will pursue what Russia considers to be its legitimate interests. (Already, a weakened Russia is challenging Western interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.) Russias European interests include not havin...

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 11, 2023

Theres a growing consensus that the failure of Kievs NATObacked counteroffensive and Moscows edge over NATO in their race of logistics/war of attrition will result in the resumption of Russian-Ukrainian talks in some form by the end of the year as was explained here. This will at the very least be aimed at reaching a ceasefire, but Zelensky is prohibited by the Rada from conducting talks with Russia, ergo the need for a mediator. Here are five reasons why India could play this role:

-

1. The US Wants To De-Sinify The Peace Process

China has the diplomatic power to implement its plan for freezing the NATO-Russian proxy war, but only if the US allows Kiev to participate in talks under its aegis, which is unlikely to be approved. Theres no way that Washington would let its systemic rival go down in history as the country that helped end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, with it instead preferring to de-Sinify the peace process by having someone else play this role in order to deprive Beijing of that diplomatic victory.

2. Russia Might Not Trust Turkiye To Mediate Again

Turkish President Erdogans violation of the Azovstal deal that he reached last year with his Russian counterpart might have irreparably damaged trust between them to the point where President Putin no longer feels comfortable with Turkiye mediating between it and Kiev e...

By Ahmed Adel | July 11, 2023

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged the European Union on July 9 to open the doors for his country to join the bloc if they want to secure support for Swedens accession to NATO. His blackmailing of the EU, which ultimately produced results, comes only days after he controversially broke an agreement with Moscow by releasing neo-Nazi Azov Battalion members under Turkeys custody to Ukraine.

Turkey has been waiting at the door of the European Union for over 50 years now, and almost all of the NATO member countries are now members of the European Union. I am making this call to these countries that have kept Turkey waiting at the gates of the European Union for more than 50 years, Erdogan said. First, open the way to Turkeys membership of the European Union, and then we will open it for Sweden, just as we had opened it for Finland.

Turkey has been an EU member candidate since 1999. Since 2016, negotiations on a visa-free regime between Turkey and the EU have been on hold. The countrys bid for EU membership has been stalled due to democratic backsliding and an unrelenting occupation of the northern portion of EU-member Cyprus since 1974.

Ultimately, Erdogan backflipped just mere hours after issuing his blackmail.

Im glad to announce that President Erdogan has agreed to forward the accession protocol for Sweden to the grand national assembly as soon as possible, and work closely with the assembly to ensure ratification, said NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg on the eve of the alliance summit in Vilnius, which will be held on July 11-12.

Finland and Sweden applied to join the bloc in May 2022. Finland gained its membership on April 4, 2023, while the Swedes await approval from Hungary and Turkey. As Turkey will never surrender its occupation of northern Cyprus, its EU membership will be forever stalled, making Erdogans ultimatum either a desperate action or a calculated manoeuvre to advance other interests.

Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrm told public broadcaster SVT that he expects Turkey will eventually signal that it will let Sweden join the alliance, though he could not say whether that would happen at the NATO summit in the Lithuanian capital. Swedens top diplomat said he expects Hungary, which also has not ratified Swedens accession, to do so before Turkey.

Turkey and Hungary remain the only NATO members still standing in the way of Sweden becoming the 32nd member of the US-led bloc, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban strongly signalling he will follow Erdogans lead and approve Swedens membership only if Turkey does the same.

Now that Erdogan has reportedly unblocked Swedens path, the question is what was offered to appease the Turkish leader. Presumably, Erdogan would have only unblocked the accession process with the promise of rec......