Putin must be smiling: Merkel's chief foreign policy expert was celebrating with him at the recent St. Petersburg mega party

The fact that - in addition to former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder - Angela Merkel's chief foreign policy expert Philipp Missfelder also attended the much criticised party with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg speaks volumes about Germany's cosy co-operation with Putin's mafia state. Merkel is now faking "furiousness", but in reality she and her government believe that German business interests are more important than Putin's aggression against an independent country:

Angela Merkel "furious" after reports that her foreign policy expert attended Gerhard Schroeder's birthday party with Vladimir Putin

German media reports said Philipp Missfelder, the chief foreign policy expert for Mrs Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Party was also a guest at the controversial party held by a subsidiary of the Russian energy giant, Gazprom. --

Der Spiegel Online remarked that Mr Schroeder and Mr Putin were seen falling into each others' arms and embracing demonstratively, "in the middle of the most serious political crisis between East and West since the Cold War".
German MPs said Mr Schroeder's behaviour was "completely irresponsible". But subsequent reports that Mr Missfelder had also attended the party apparently caused " massive annoyance" not to say embarrassment within Christian Democrat Party ranks yesterday.
"Chancellor Angel Merkel is angry because she was not informed about the visit," Der Spiegel Online wrote.
Mr Missfelder, is known to be an ardent supporter of German business interests in Russia and has sympathised with the Kremlin's standpoint on Ukraine.

Read the entire article here

The New York Times editorial: "Some prominent Europeans are willing to ignore Mr. Putin's brutish ways"

The New York Times is right in pointing out that the European Union is to blame for the West's hitherto all too weak reaction against dictator Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine:

Yet given Mr. Putin’s demonstrative disdain for the Geneva agreements, along with the aggressive behavior of Russian troops massed on Ukraine’s borders and the continued occupation of administrative and security buildings in southeastern Ukrainian cities by Moscow-directed secessionists, such targeted penalties are not likely to change Russia’s behavior. And the sort that would — coordinated United States-European Union sanctions on financial institutions, the energy sector or defense industries — have proved very difficult to construct, largely because of the substantial difference between American and European exposure to Russia’s economy.

 

About a quarter of the European Union’s gas supplies come from Russia, and despite years of talk about reducing this dependence, little has been done. European Union trade with Russia, moreover, amounted to almost $370 billion in 2012, compared with United States-Russia trade of $26 billion. This includes some huge sales, like the two helicopter carriers France is building for the Russian Navy as part of a $1.6 billion deal signed in 2011. What that means is that any sanctions that really bite will cost Europe a lot more than the United States.

But there will be other costs if Europe and America do not join in a unified response. Among other things, a weak and fragmented response would call into question a longstanding trans-Atlantic commitment to protect international law and democratic values against the kind of aggression Mr. Putin is engaging in. And optics here are important: The decision of Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor, to meet with Mr. Putin on Monday in St. Petersburg and embrace him in a bear hug sent an unacceptable signal that some prominent Europeans are willing to ignore Mr. Putin’s brutish ways.

 

This is another example of the fact that the European Union is once again unable to reach a common position on a matter of great importance. What kind of a member of NATO is e.g. France, which is selling helicopter carriers to a dictator with blood in his hands! Schröder is a hopeless case, but it is shameful that Germany's business leaders want to continue their co-coperation with Putin and his cronies as if nothing would have happened.

Putin's lapdog, ex Chancellor Schröder should be placed on the US sanction list!

No wonder Angel Merkel's government and German media distanced themselves from dictator Putin's lapdog, ex Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who on Monday embraced his master in St. Petersburg:

"Schroeder celebrates his birthday with Putin and makes Germany's foreign policy look absurd," wrote Roland Nelles in a commentary for Der Spiegel magazine's online edition, which published a series of pictures showing Schroeder first waiting for Putin's car to arrive and embracing the Russian president.
"The ex-chancellor is mistaken to think he can carry on with business-as-usual as if nothing has happened. The German government, which his party belongs to, is doing all it can right now to stop his friend Vladimir from pursuing power-hungry policies. In times like this, a former German government leader should keep his distance."
Heiner Bremer, senior political correspondent for Germany's N-TV news network, also condemned Schroeder.
"It shows Schroeder has no instincts and no taste for such a meeting at a time when Putin has annexed Crimea and is trying to redraw Eastern Europe's borders," Bremer said in a commentary. "He has lost all credibility."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung online also criticised Schroeder, adding his SPD party in Germany was left speechless.
"There is something ghoulish to pictures of a smiling Schroeder as he hugs his friend Vladimir at the same time German army soldiers have been taken hostage by fanatic Putin admirers," wrote Thomas Holl of the FAZ in a commentary, referring to observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe who are being held in Slaviansk.

Schröder should of course be placed on the US sanction list as soon as possible!

The credibility of IPCC in tatters: Censored Harvard professor says document is "a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them"

For years now it has been clear that the entire IPCC process has been heavily politicized. Here is the latest proof:

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests. 

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.
Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.
Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject. --


Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.
He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’
Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.
Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.’