In the heyday of NATO between 1949 and 1995, the NATO’s credo was clear: an armed attack against anyone in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against all. For NATO members this was not a superficial contract between politicians, but a contract between the populations of the member nations. NATO countries had a standing army with conscripts prepared for war. There was opposition to the organization but everyone knew the purpose and scope of the organization.

In 1999 the NATO was enlarged with Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland under the same mandate: an armed attack against any one in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against all. The 1999 enlargement annoyed Russia but did not change the spirit of the organization nor the population it relies on and has to protect.

During the 2002 Prague summit, NATO invited former Soviet republics as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania without consulting the population of its member states. While the NATO management assured these countries that they apply under the same security credo as all countries, the political reality is completely different. The willingness in Europe to fight in an ethnic border conflict in one of the former Soviet republics is very low. NATO Management has steered the organization on a slippery road, creating an organization that is not able to fulfill its promises. With the Baltic states as new member countries the NATO organization could still pretend that the emperor is not naked, but with the expansion including Georgia and Ukraine, things can unravel very rapidly.

With this expansion, Europe and the US could be sucked into a Caucasus conflict most Europeans never heard of and in countries they probably are not able to find on the map. There are no politicians in Europe who would send out their army on behalf of NATO into the Panski Gorge in case of a Russian invasion into this part of Georgia as they are chasing Chechen Jihadist. Continue reading →

It is very hard to predict who in the end will be the next president of the USA. But the world should realize Donald Trump is a very serious established GOP candidate who has a very high chance of winning the 2016 elections. Especially outside the US this prospect is not taken seriously yet. Our conclusion is the opposite: one better be prepared for Donald Trump as the next president of the USA.

Many European and Asian analysts see Donald Trump as part of the USA media-show frenzy but hardly regard him as a serious contester for the US presidency. Mr. Trump is framed as an outsider who threatens the status quo, but this couldn’t be further from the truth.

According to our analysis, Mr. Trump is the most established GOP candidate with support from all over the US political elite and media establishment.  He has full support from the GOP and media establishment. The McCain remark by Mr. Trump: “McCain is not a Hero” is supported by many veterans. Some GOP leaders will be sacrificed for the show, and some will despise Mr. Trump for his aggressive remarks, but cross the board he is admired and a well- respected GOP member and acknowledged by the US political elite across the political spectrum. He is not an outsider as he likes to frame himself.

The US media scrutinize Trump on some nonissues. The so-called critical media interviews were unconvincing; they were executed by journalists who were no match for him. It had nothing to do with serious politics. In fact, the US corporate media is launching Trump as the new GOP Brand. Trump is not Mrs. Palin who stunned Europe and Asia as the running mate for McCain during the 2008 elections. Mrs. Palin was despised by the media elite while Trump is being admired. Mrs. Palin is as simple minded as her supporters while Trump is far more clever than his audience, he knows that he is lying to them. He is a calculated businessman that plays with his victims, the ideal candidate for the US corporate establishment the ideal candidate for Wall Street.

Compare the media hype around Donald Trump with the 2012 maverick: Ron Paul. Ron Paul received zero media attention.  Continue reading →

Europe’s Turkey policy has been derailed since a couple of years. In 2004 the famous far-right politician, Geert Wilders was expelled from the decent Dutch Liberal Party (VVD) because he refused to endorse Turkey as a European Member state. The European establishment cross the board pursued the ideal of a large European Union including Turkey, disregarding the opinion of the European population at large.
Since then, much has been changed. After the Gezi protests and the closure of Twitter and YouTube in Turkey, the European mood switched completely. Given the current political situation in Turkey, EU’s leadership, Mr. Junker and Mr. Schulz do not want Turkey to join the EU anymore. Only the UK is a staunch supporter of Turkey’s EU membership, an other sign that London wants to crumble the EU from within.

The elections in Turkey in June revived some hope in Brussels. Brussels elite saw the entrance of the the Kurdish HDP as a positive sign that the Turkey democratization process will be restored. HDP leader Demirtas was already dubbed the Turkish Obama by the European press. Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for European Enlargement, saw the fact that the election took place with a record 86 percent turnout as “clear sign of strength of the Turkish democracy.” Continue reading →

Microsoft is investing heavily in its clouds services. Companies and governments have to hand over their most valuable and sensitive assets to Microsoft. For organisations, it is not only important to know in which jurisdiction Microsoft cloud services operate, but it is also important to know Microsoft’s corporate values in regard to local rules and laws with respect to privacy and confidentiality. Microsoft’s 100 million investment in UBER shows Microsoft’s contempt for the rule of law and local regulations. Something one could not ignore when considering the use of Microsoft cloud services.  

There has been a lot of discussion about the disruptive company UBER. The image of the company is carefully framed as a rebellious start up from California. With 9 billion in cash investments, the company is part of the big US corporate family. UBER is definitely not a small rebellious startup.
It is naive to believe that the company started a disruptive service without realising, it will run into problems with local law enforcement. Before 9 billion cash is invested, investors know the business model, including the legal challenges and implications. The UBER business model is based on deliberately undermining the rule of law and tax evasion, investors and business owners are absolutely aware of this before they pour 9 billion into the company.
The company proclaimed that it has a very efficient model of ride sharing, we used to call hitch hiking. In reality the company exploits a world wide network of illegal taxi services, based on tax and local transportation law dodging. Continue reading →

Unemployment in the single currency area differ sharply between member countries.  According to Eurostat, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal have a youth unemployment rate between 30% and 50%, while countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Austria have a youth unemployment rate below 15%. There is some labor mobility in the Euro area but language, cultural differences and differences in insurance are still a barrier.

The overall unemployment rate in the Euro area is 11.1%. The euro area lacks a common fiscal policy, it also lacks a common unemployment insurance program and a common economic policy to address regional differences. A whole generation of Europeans will be wasted as a result of the high youth unemployment.

A common policy to address the current problems, implies a common European budget with a separate European Parliament that is solely dedicated to the euro area.

 

 

Varoufakis, Greece’s former Minister of Finance, explained plan B that he was preparing for Greece, in a conference call with the OMFIF (Official Monetary And Financial Institutions Reform)   The plan envisioned a parallel banking system, transactions still in euros  and the possibility to switch the system into the Drachma.

The US-Syrian policy forces Ankara to walk a fine line between ISIS, the Assad’s regime, the US, the Kurds and their own interests. We are not ruling out that Erdoğan could declare a state of emergency and postpone new elections. Whatever the result of the power struggle in Ankara may be, Turkey’s military will not accept that the YPG and PKK are armed to the teeth by the US.

From the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Turkey and the US supported the insurgency against Assad. Turkey formed a safe haven and provided weapons to groups that have later evolved into ISIS. The US started to organize “Friends of Syria” conferences to support the insurgency in Syria. At these conferences, not only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lectured Putin on his Middle-East policy, but money was also collected for Jihadists now known as ISIS.

Security analysts who were not blinded by US and European propaganda have already noticed that the Kurds are a hurdle in the chosen strategy. The Kurds did not side with the FSA and the “Friends of Syria” show. They have been engaged in deadly clashes with the US-Turkey backed Jihadists. Kurdish leaders have already been slaughtered by the FSA in 2012. The so called “Friends of Syria” conference in Cairo ended in a brawl between Kurds and Jihadists.

During this period, the relation between Turkey and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Northern Iraq, improved dramatically. Former BP CEO Tony Hayward visited Erbil and advised the KRG  to build a direct oil pipeline to Turkey, bypassing Iraq’s pipes, enabling the Kurds to export Kurdish oil directly via Turkish port of Ceyhan. The good business relation between Barzani, the prime minister of the KRG  and Erdoğan’s government limited the freedom for the PKK to operate from Northern Iraq.

Under Assad, the PKK had no opportunity to operate from Syria. In 1998, Turkey threatened to invade Syria as a result of the PKK’s staged attacks from Kurdish Syrian areas. Since then, Damascus reined in the Kurds and stopped the PKK operating from Syria, preventing further escalation between Ankara and Damascus.

Assad had (and still has) little power to retaliate against the US-Turkey support for the Jihadist insurgents against his regime. Assad understood that the Kurds in Syria could spoil the fragile Kurdish peace process in Turkey. In 2012 he granted the Kurds in Syria autonomy to retaliate against Turkey. Back then he could not foresee how great this move was, thanks to the rogue and unreliable US policy in the Middle East. Continue reading →