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.’

Putin should be put on the criminal blacklist in the West

"He is definitively not off the table"

Last year dictator Vladimir Putin was held on Finland's criminal blacklist (although he was later removed from it). Now it is time for both Finland and the rest of the Free World to put him back where he belongs - the sooner, the better:

“As the White House has made clear, we don’t usually start off by sanctioning heads of state, but imposing sanctions on Putin is an option,” the spokesperson said Thursday after the publication of Newsweek’s cover story on sanctions. “He is definitely not off the table.”--

If blacklisted, Putin would join a handful of other heads of state who have been sanctioned over the years, including former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych,  Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, the former ruler of Iraq, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

Read the entire article here

A good sign: First U.S. Army paratroopers have arrived in Poland

This is a good sign:

U.S. Army paratroopers are arriving in Poland on Wednesday as part of a wave of U.S. troops heading to shore up America's Eastern European allies in the face of Russian meddling in Ukraine. 
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said an initial contingent of about 600 troops will head to four countries across Eastern Europe for military exercises over the next month. 

First, about 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Vicenza, Italy, are arriving in Poland. 
Additional Army companies will head to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and are expected to arrive by Monday for similar land-based exercises in those countries. 
The show of strength comes as the United States, European allies and Ukraine try to ease tensions with Russia and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. All sides struck a diplomatic agreement last week, but it remains unclear whether pro-Russian demonstrators, who took over a series of government buildings in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, will back down. 
Under the current plan, U.S. troops would rotate in and out of the four Eastern European countries for additional exercises on a recurring basis.

PS

Barack Obama should always remember what his great predecessor said:

Australian PM Tony Abbott's adviser: "climate change establishment is now starting to look rather shaky because mother nature is not complying"

Fortunately there are people like Maurice Newman, chairman of PM Tony Abbott's Business Advisory Council, who dare to oppose the warmists' 97 per cent mantra:

EMMA ALBERICI: It's no secret that you don't agree that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Given there is now consensus among 97 per cent or so of climate scientists across the world that the view - around the view that human activity is responsible for climate change, what would it take to convince you?

MAURICE NEWMAN: We know first of all that the survey which came out with the 97 per cent number was flawed in the first place. So we don't pay any attention to that. What we do look at...

EMMA ALBERICI: There have been roughly three that have come up with that.

MAURICE NEWMAN: They all come up with flawed methodologies. So we don't pay any attention to that. We know that there are a whole host of scientists out there who have a different point of view, who are highly respected, reputable scientists. So the 97 per cent doesn't mean anything in any event because science is not a consensus issue. Science is whatever the science is and the fact remains there is no empirical evidence to show that man-made CO2, man-made emissions are adding to the temperature on earth. We haven't had any measurable increase in temperature on earth for the last 17.5 years. If you look back over history, there's no evidence that CO2 has driven the climate either. So I know that this is a view which is peddled consistently, but I think that the edifice which is the climate change establishment is now starting to look rather shaky because mother nature is not complying.

PS

What Newman wrote about wind turbines some time ago is also worth reading:

The harmful health effects, despite peer-reviewed and anecdotal evidence, are dismissed as being unconfirmed, psychosomatic or the politics of envy. It’s true. Not everyone who lives near wind turbines experiences adverse health effects. But then not everyone who smokes contracts lung cancer. Unaffected residents are bought off with bribes of better roads, community improvements or offers of employment. But these are token gestures and lead to bitterness and deep divisions in the community.
There is clearly an imbalance when cash-poor local residents are pitted against governments and powerful corporations. Rather than listen to their constituents, politicians are lending their support to oligopolistic insiders and, in so doing, are destroying the property rights of the very people they have pledged to protect.
But don’t expect help from academia, mainstream media or the public service. They are members of the same establishment and worship together at the altar of global warming. By ruthlessly perpetuating the illusion that wind farms can somehow save the planet, they keep the money flowing. All the while the poor become poorer, ever more dependent on welfare and colder in winter.