Where does Germany stand?

In the emerging new Cold War between the United States and China, it’s easy enough to slot some key global players onto one of the two sides. Russia stands with China and Japan stands with the United States.

Where does Europe stand is a key question mark. Long on the sidelines — much where President Xi Jinping has wanted — there are signs emerging that Germany, Europe’s economic engine, is undergoing a rethink about its trade and investment ties with China. German industry is fully cognizant of the danger of any fundamental shift, given its enormous reliance on China.

Outgoing Volkswagen AG China boss Stephan Wollenstein underscored last month that Asia’s biggest economy remains key to the fortunes of the German auto giant, which counted on China for 40% of its sales in the first quarter.

But the political tilt in Berlin is conspicuous. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said last month she is very serious about reducing the German economy’s reliance on China. 

Back in April, when Chancellor Olaf Scholz made his debut trip to Asia, he decided to stop first in Japan — a contrast with predecessor Angela Merkel, who put China first. Scholz highlighted that political symbolism was a priority in setting up the trip, saying in Tokyo that it was no coincidence his first trip as leader led him to that city.

Meantime, German lawmakers have pressed for greater scrutiny over their nation’s business ties with China. Despite industry lobbying, in 2021 they pushed through a supply-chain law that now requires companies to do due diligence on their suppliers, ensuring they don’t use slave labor — a move clearly targeted at China, amid concerns over practices in Xinjiang.

The Economy Ministry, led by Berbock’s Green Party colleague Robert Habeck, in May declined to renew investment guarantees for Volkswagen in China, over human-rights concerns, Der Spiegel and other media reported.

The increasing importance of geopolitics in Germany’s economic ties with China also hit home with the diplomatic spat between China and Lithuania. German firms that sourced products from Lithuania, including Continental AG, found their items held up in Chinese customs.

If a Baltic nation allowing Taiwan set up a representative office can end up disrupting German business operations in China, then it opens up a whole set of risks previously given little thought. One solution is to localize operations in China — effectively cordoning them off from overseas supply chains.

Germany Inc. is also facing a sea-change in terms of popular sentiment on the home front. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine — which did China little favor in terms of public opinion in most democratic nations, given Beijing’s support for Moscow — a majority of Germany’s population had turned negative on the country. A survey by Forsa, a research institute, last year showed 58% wanted Berlin to take a tougher stance against China even if it affected economic relations with the nation.

Germany is expected to release a fresh strategic game plan with regard to China later this year, and it will likely see the formal ditching Merkel’s approach of “wandel durch handel, or “change through trade,” says Yanmei Xie, a China policy analyst at Gavekal.

“How quickly the relationship changes will depend on how the argument resolves between Germans who favor values and strategic autonomy versus those who emphasize growth and profits,” she wrote in a note this month.

 Courtesy: Bloomberg

United States not keen in reviving Iran nuclear deal

The chances of reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are worse after indirect United States-Iranian talks in Doha that ended without progress, a senior US official told Reuters.

"The prospects for a deal after Doha are worse than they were before Doha and they will be getting worse by the day," said the official on condition of anonymity.

"You could describe Doha at best as treading water, at worst as moving backwards. But at this point treading water is for all practical purposes moving backwards," he added.

The official would not go into the details of the Doha talks, during which European Union officials shuttled between the two sides trying to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement under which Iran had limited its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.

Then US President Donald Trump reneged on the agreement in 2018 and restored harsh US sanctions on Iran, prompting Tehran to start violating its nuclear restrictions about a year later.

"Their vague demands, reopening of settled issues, and requests clearly unrelated to the JCPOA all suggests to us ... that the real discussion that has to take place is (not) between Iran and the US to resolve remaining differences. It is between Iran and Iran to resolve the fundamental question about whether they are interested in a mutual return to the JCPOA," the senior US official said.

"At this point, we are not sure if they (the Iranians) know what more they want. They didn’t come to Doha with many specifics," he added. "Most of what they raised they either knew - or should have known - was outside the scope of the JCPOA and thus completely unsellable to us and to the Europeans, or were issues that had been thoroughly debated and resolved in Vienna and that we were clearly not going to reopen."

Speaking at the UN Security Council, US, British and French diplomats all placed the onus on Iran for the failure to revive the agreement after more than a year of negotiations.

Iran, however, characterized the Doha talks as positive and blamed the United States for failing to provide guarantees that a new US administration would not again abandon the deal as Trump had done.

"Iran has demanded verifiable and objective guarantees from the US that JCPOA will not be torpedoed again, that the US will not violate its obligations again, and that sanctions will not be re-imposed under other pretexts or designations," Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi told the council.

The senior US official said Washington had made clear since the talks began in April 2021 that it could not give Iran legal guarantees that a future US administration would stick to the deal.

"We said there is no legal way we can bind a future administration, and so we looked for other ways to give some form of comfort to Iran and … we - along with all of the other P5+1 (nations) and the EU coordinator - thought that file had been closed," the senior US official added.

Iran struck the original deal with Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany, a group called the P5+1.

The senior US official disputed Tehran's argument that Washington was to blame for the lack of progress, saying the United States had responded positively to proposed EU changes to the draft text of an agreement reached during wider talks in March while Iran had failed to respond to those proposals.

If the deal is not revived, he said "the Iranian leadership would need to explain why it turned its back on the benefits of the deal for the sake of issues that wouldn't make a positive difference in the life of a single ordinary Iranian."

The US official did not detail those issues. Restoring the deal would allow Iran to legally export its oil - the life blood of its economy.

Joe Biden to ask G7 nations to ban import of Russian gold

US President, Joe Biden said Sunday that the Group of Seven (G7) nations will ban Russian gold imports to further impose financial costs on Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.  

“The United States has imposed unprecedented costs on Putin to deny him the revenue he needs to fund his war against Ukraine,” Biden tweeted on Sunday. “Together, the G7 will announce that we will ban the import of Russian gold, a major export that rakes in tens of billions of dollars for Russia.” 

Biden’s announcement came on the first day of a G7 meeting in Germany; a formal announcement is expected later on during the summit.  

While it does not bring in as much money as energy, gold is a major source of revenue for the Russian economy. Restricting exports to G7 economies will cause more financial strain to Russia as it wages the war in Ukraine.  

The G7 includes the United States, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy.  

The US and its allies have been searching for more ways to punish Russia for the bloody war that recently entered its fifth month. Biden has announced waves of penalties coordinated with allies that range from sanctions on Russian officials and oligarchs to export controls to sanctions on major Russian banks.  

Still, Europeans are limited in what they can do because of their dependence on Russian energy imports. European countries have vowed to phase out Russian oil but have not taken steps like the US to do so immediately.  

Biden administration officials teased new announcements to squeeze Russia ahead of Biden’s trip to Europe and it is possible there will be more announcements beyond the plan to ban Russian gold imports.  

Biden embarked on the trip to Europe for the G7 meeting and, later, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit with the goal of demonstrating unity with allies on keeping up pressure on Russia even as the war roils the global economy. 

Biden spent Sunday morning meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and later participated in a working lunch with other leaders.  

A White House readout of Biden’s meeting with Scholz indicated Ukraine was a main topic of conversation.  

“The leaders underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as their continued provision of military, economic, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to help Ukraine defend its democracy against Russian aggression,” the White House readout said. “The leaders also discussed efforts to alleviate the impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine on global food and energy security.” 

Biden also thanked Scholz for committing to boosting Germany’s defense spending above NATO’s 2% of gross domestic product target.  

A White House official characterized the meeting as “very warm and friendly” and said there was “very broad alignment on all of the issues that they discussed and all the common challenges that our countries are working on together.”

 

Iran likely to turn off all cameras beyond Safeguards agreement

Chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) announced on Thursday night that Iran has turned off a number of IAEA cameras which were monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities beyond the Safeguards agreement and plans to turn off the rest soon.

“We ended the activities of a number of these cameras and we will do the rest tonight and tomorrow,” Mohammad Eslami told the national TV.

The cameras that have been removed or are being removed were installed voluntarily. Their activity fell outside the scope of the Safeguards agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran embarked on removing such cameras in response to a resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors against Iran late on Wednesday.

The resolution, proposed by the United States and the European trio ‑ Germany, France and Britain ‑  was approved by the IAEA’s 35-nation board with 30 votes in favor, two against and three abstentions. Russia and China voted against the resolution and India, Libya and Pakistan abstained.

The resolution was drafted on the basis of a report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi in which it was claimed Iran had refused to provide answers to traces of uranium enrichment found at three undeclared sites. This is while Iran had provided answers to the IAEA about these alleged sites, which finally led to the conclusion of the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Questions about the alleged nuclear sites, which were referred to as possible military dimensions (PMD), were answered and the issue closed.

“You closed all these allegations and charges within the PMD…. And now you have come and say you want to return to the JCPOA. Okay, return to the JCPOA but why do you reopen the closed package which form the essence of the JCPOA?” Eslami asked.

Prior to the debate on Iran’s nuclear program at the IAEA board, Grossi had visited Tel Aviv for talks with Israeli officials, a move which put in serious question Grossi’s neutrality and professionalism by the Agency under his leadership.

Eslami went on to say that the IAEA, based on its articles 2 and 3, is tasked to transfer nuclear technology to NPT signatories for civilian uses but the reality is that the IAEA is “a pawn of the Zionists”.

It is widely believed that these alleged nuclear sites have been raised by Israel through bogus documents.

“It is regretful that an international institution is exploited in such a way by a fake regime and puts its credibility in question,” the AEOI chief lamented.

Israel, which has been launching an intensive campaign against Iran’s nuclear program for about two decades, has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has about 90 nuclear weapons. It also played a key role in provoking the Trump administration to quit the JCPOA, which was the product of 12 years of negotiations.

The nuclear chief went on to say that all the commitments made by Iran under the JCPOA was beyond the Safeguards agreement and were chiefly intended to create confidence about Tehran’s nuclear activities.

“Why has the Islamic Republic accepted to limit itself and be under more intensive surveillance and control by the Agency for a rather long term? It was just because it wanted to get rid of these accusations and build trust,” he explained.

However, Eslami added, this good intention which was shown in the negotiations and the JCPOA is not being considered at all by the IAEA, including its Director Grossi.

There is no will by Grossi to become convinced of Iran’s answers and this shows that he is a hostage to Israelis and that he has adopted a political behavior toward Iran.

 

United States urged to restore Iran nuclear deal

More than 40 former government officials and leading nuclear non-proliferation experts have expressed strong support for an agreement that returns Iran and the United States to comply with the 2015 nuclear deal.

The accord between Iran and the major world powers, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2231.

The major world powers are P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany) together with the European Union.

The joint statement points out that if President of United States, Joe Biden fails to bring negotiations with Iran to a prompt and successful conclusion it would perpetuate the failed strategy pursued by the Trump administration and allow Iran to further improve its capacity to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. The result, the nuclear nonproliferation experts write, “would increase the danger that Iran would become a threshold nuclear-weapon state”.

Signatories of the letter include a former special representative to the president of the United States on non-proliferation, former US State Department officials, the United States’ former Ambassador to Israel, Russia, and the United Nations, and leading nuclear non-proliferation experts based in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

“A prompt return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA is the best available way to deny Iran the ability to quickly produce bomb-grade nuclear material,” the experts’ letters notes.

“It would reinstate full IAEA international monitoring and verification of Iran’s nuclear facilities, thus ensuring early warning if Iran were to try to acquire nuclear weapons—and possibly become the second state in the Middle East (in addition to Israel) with such an arsenal.”

Despite Iran’s compliance with the accord, former US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018, reimposed sanctions that had been waived as part of the agreement and embarked on a pressure campaign designed to deny Tehran any benefit of remaining in compliance with the nuclear deal.

Iran continued to meet its JCPOA obligations until May 2019, when Tehran began a series of calibrated violations of the agreement designed to pressure the remaining JCPOA parties to meet their commitments and push the United States to return to the agreement. These violations, while largely reversible, have increased the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

“As a result of Trump administration policies,” the experts’ statement says, “it is now estimated that the time it would take Iran to produce a significant quantity (25 kg) of bomb-grade uranium (enriched to 90 percent U-235) is down from more than a year under the JCPOA, to approximately one or two weeks today.”

“Restoring the limits on Iran’s nuclear program will significantly increase (by many months) the time it would take Iran to produce a significant quantity of bomb grade material, which provides the margin necessary for the international community to take effective action if Iran were to try to do so,” the experts say.

“Just as importantly,” the experts write, “the JCPOA mandates unprecedented International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring, verification, and transparency measures that make it very likely that any possible future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly.”

Failure to bring Iran back under the limits established by the JCPOA would produce long-term adverse effects on the global non-proliferation regime, put US allies at greater risk, and create a new nuclear crisis, experts say.

Courtesy: International Press Syndicate

 

European countries agree on mechanism to pay for Russian gas in roubles

European energy firms can open special accounts with Gazprombank to pay for Russian gas, a key demand by Moscow, without breaching sanctions if transferring euros or dollars to them fulfils their contractual obligations, the German Economy Ministry said.

Russia cut gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland this week for failing to pay in roubles, raising fears that other countries could be next.

Moscow's decree says Gazprombank would open special "K" type accounts for gas payments from foreign buyers. An EU company would transfer foreign currency into one such account, and then a Russian bank would convert the payment to roubles and transfer the roubles to another "K" account belonging to Gazprom.

European Union countries remain divided over whether sanctions would be broken if they engage with Russia's roubles payment demand.

Russia's decree said the buyer's obligation would be considered fulfilled only when the roubles arrived in Gazprom's account.

"There are European guidelines on payment modalities, which form the framework for us and which we adhere to," a spokesperson for Germany's Economy Ministry said on Friday in an e-mailed statement.

"According to these guidelines, account K, to which payment is made in euros/dollars, is in line with the sanctions if companies declare that contracts have been fulfilled with payment in euros or dollars."

A government source said that it was irrelevant in which country the K account is opened as long as the bank in question was not on any sanctions list.

The European Commission will provide EU countries with extra guidance on whether they can keep paying for Russian gas without breaching the bloc's sanctions, a Commission official told Reuters on Friday.

Companies and countries were at odds over Moscow's rouble-for-gas payment system on Friday, while European officials promised more guidance on whether buying Russian gas can comply with sanctions and Russia said it saw no problem with its plan.

It did not specify whether companies could do this and also open a rouble account, as requested by Russia, without being in breach of EU sanctions. 

Denmark's Orsted said it has no intention of opening a rouble account in Russia, although it declined to comment on payment in other currencies. Italy's ENI also said it had not opened an account in roubles.

Under Russia's mechanism, buyers are obliged to deposit euros or dollars into an account at privately-owned Russian bank Gazprombank, which has then to convert them into roubles, place the proceeds in another account owned by the foreign buyer and transfer the payment in Russian currency to Gazprom.

EU energy ministers will on Monday hold an emergency meeting to discuss their response to Russia's demand.

The European Commission, the EU executive, has already said countries may be able to make sanctions-compliant payments provided they declare their payments are completed once it has been made in euros and before it is converted into roubles.

EU countries, however, have said they want more clarity, while Germany, the bloc's biggest economy and among the most dependent on Russian gas, says it cannot afford to stop buying Russian supplies, even though it is taking steps to find alternative sources of energy.

A European Commission official told Reuters on Friday the executive will provide EU countries with extra guidance following complaints from some countries that ambiguity would leave different countries reaching different interpretations of what they were allowed to do.

Russia on Friday said it saw no problem with its proposed system.

"If the established procedure for interaction between gas buyers and the authorized bank is observed by the buyer, and there are no problems for the authorized bank in terms of selling currency on the stock exchange due to restrictive measures on the part of foreign states, then there cannot be any obstacles to paying for and receiving natural gas," Russian Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina said.

The rouble has to an extent benefited from Moscow's demand for roubles payment. The currency hit its highest level versus the euro in more than two years on Friday supported by capital controls as the central bank cut interest rates for the second time this month.

European gas prices have hit record levels since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Europe's top gas supplier, and were up slightly on Friday.

Central to the confusion on the part of the European buyers is whether Russia would only consider the payment to be complete after the gas-to-roubles conversion is done - a transaction that would involve Russia's central bank, which is subject to EU sanctions.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, an EU diplomat admitted a certain amount of ambiguity could be helpful as the bloc seeks to prevent any widening of divisions between countries, which have different levels of reliance on Russia and different deadlines to make payments.

"In the circumstances, a little bit of messiness might just be preferable," the diplomat said.

Poland and Bulgaria have contracts with Gazprom due to expire at the end of this year, which meant their search for alternative supplies was already advanced. Poland also has very healthy gas stocks around 77% full.

Austria’s OMV, which has a contract with Gazprom until 2040, said it was analyzing how a change could be implemented for it to pay in roubles without breaching sanctions when next payment is due in May.

United States has 40 military sites in Germany

This morning I was dismayed to read the news that the United States is training Ukrainian troops in Germany. I immediately clicked WIKIPEDIA to find some details. The bigger surprise was the United States has 40 military installations in Germany. Over the years more than 220 installations have been closed, mostly following the end of the Cold War in the 1990s.

The rationale behind the large number of closures is that the strategic functions of the bases, designed to serve as forward posts in any war against the USSR, are no longer relevant since the end of the Cold War era.

WIKIPEDIA has a list of United States military locations in Germany, both closed and still existing. To preserve originality, place names follow US Forces nomenclature as far as is reasonable. As the amount of data grew, it became necessary to list each garrison on two separate pages: List of American Military Sites in Southern Germany, List of American Military Sites in Northern Germany.

The associations were subordinate to the following supreme commands:

The US armed forces were initially organized as USFET (United States Forces European Theater) from August 01, 1945 to February 28, 1946 in Berlin and Frankfurt am Main, IG Farben Building. 

On March 15, 1947 they were reassigned to EUCOM (European Command) in Frankfurt, 1948 moved from Frankfurt to Heidelberg, Campbell Barracks. On January 01, 1950 reorganized as USAREUR (United States Army Europe). USAREUR was subordinate to USEUCOM (United States European Command), since 1967 in Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Patch Barracks.

The US Air Force was reorganized on August 16, 1945 from USSAF (US Strategic Air Forces) to USAFE (US Air Forces, Europe) in Wiesbaden, Lindsey Air Station, while still part of the US Army. 

Subordination to EUCOM was lifted in 1950 and1972 Transfer to Ramstein Air Base. 

USAFE was subordinate to USEUCOM (United States European Command), since 1967 in Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Patch Barracks.

The US nuclear weapons on German soil formed the backbone of the North Atlantic Alliance. They were the crucial military element of the Cold War.

The ability to use the nuclear arsenal and the will to ultimately use these weapons, conveyed to the opponent in a credible manner, formed the core element in the global bipolar conflict.

The 59th Ordnance Brigade in Pirmasens was responsible for the nuclear operational capability of the USA. Nuclear custody according to the principle of the two keys was the responsibility of the United States Army Field Artillery Detachments (USAFAD) - in the Nike associations United States Army Artillery Detachments (USAAD), which were subordinate to the United States Army Artillery Groups (USAAG) at corps level.

The detachments were with all nuclear-capable NATO allies on German soil from 1958 (Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada (until 1984) and also France until 1966 stationed.

The "Regency Net" system with the control center in Pirmasens was set up from 1976 to 1982 as the command and control network. 

In an emergency, Regency Net would have served to transmit "Emergency Action Messages" from CINCEUR (also SACEUR in personal union) for the release of nuclear weapons for the national partners. 

For the Air Force there was a similar organization with Munitions Support Squadrons (MUNSS) and a Munitions Maintenance Group in Ramstein.

 

United States training Ukrainian troops in Germany

Reportedly, the United States has started training Ukrainian troops on howitzer artillery systems and radars at US military installations in Germany, said a Pentagon spokesperson on Friday.   

The efforts will build on initial artillery training given to a small number of Ukrainian forces elsewhere, and will also include training on the radar systems and armored vehicles the US recently pledged to Kyiv, press secretary John Kirby told reporters. 

The Florida National Guard will provide the bulk of the training, as those forces had been training Ukrainian troops before being moved out of Ukraine ahead of Russia’s February 24, 2022 invasion, Kirby said. 

“The recent reunion now of these Florida National Guard members with their Ukrainian colleagues, we are told, was an emotional meeting given the strong bonds that were formed as they were living and working together before temporarily parting ways in February,” Kirby said. 

The US is training 100 more Ukrainians on howitzer artillery systems in Europe in a five-day course, according to the Pentagon.

Washington has said it will send 90 howitzers total to the embattled country as part of two security assistance packages worth US$800 million each, announced earlier this month.  

Another 15 Ukrainians are being trained on radars for about a week.

The troops will then return to Ukraine to train their fellow soldiers on how to use the systems. 

Kirby also noted that Germany is one of roughly three sites being used by the US to train Ukrainians outside of their country, but he would not say where the other sites were. 

In addition, the US is considering the option of doing virtual training with Ukrainians on some defense equipment, Kirby said.  

 

Israeli weapon seen used by Ukrainian unit against Russia

An anti-armor weapon jointly developed by Israel, Singapore and a German company has been seen in use by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion against Russian military forces.

In a video released by the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian fighter, ostensibly affiliated with the controversial unit, can be seen firing the portable anti-tank weapon at what appears to be a Russian armored personnel carrier (APC).

As Western countries have undertaken massive arms transfers to Ukraine to support it in its war against Russia, critics such as The Intercept’s Sara Sirota have expressed concern that these weapons could end up in the Azov Battalion, which was integrated into Ukraine’s National Force in 2014.

Anti-tank and armor weapons such as the Javelin, NLAW and MATADOR have been a mainstay of arms transfers to Ukraine. In a March 16, 2022 briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “Anti-armor and air-defense systems, they are effectively defending the country.”

The German Defense Ministry listed 2,650 MATADORs for purchase by Ukraine, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported in March. Euromaidan Press reported that they had been purchased for €25 million, along with another 2,450 that will be produced.

The recently released video shows that these partly Israeli-developed weapons are now in the hands of the Azov Battalion, which has been widely characterized as a neo-Nazi militia. While CNN and other media analysis have weighed the possibility that Azov has reformed, the group still has prominent neo-Nazis in its ranks and features white supremacist symbols.

The Battalion’s logo still has the Black Sun, a common white supremacist symbol, and the Wolfsangel symbol used by the Nazi SS.

This is not the first time concerns have been raised about Israeli weapons and Ukraine. In February, Interfax Ukraine reported that the Israeli Defense Ministry told Baltic states that it wouldn’t meet requests for third-party transfer of Israeli-made weapons to Ukraine.

In 2018, Haaretz reported that human rights activists filed a petition to the High Court of Justice demanding an end to arms exports to Ukraine over concern they would reach Azov militants.

Haaretz published an image showing an Israel Weapons Industry Tavor sub-machine gun being held by an Azov Battalion soldier. Tavors have also been seen wielded by Ukrainian fighters in the recent conflict, produced under license by Ukrainian company RPC Fort as the FORT-221, according to The Warzone.

The MATADOR, also known in European markets as the RGW 90, is an unguided short-range shoulder-fired anti-armor rocket launcher jointly developed by Israeli government-owned defense firm RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems, Singapore’s armed forces and Defence Science and Technology Agency, and German defense company Dynamit Nobel.

The MATADOR platform was developed for the confined spaces of urban warfare environments and is capable of penetrating the armor of most APCs and light tanks, according to the Singaporean Defense Ministry.

The weapon has a “dual-capability” warhead beyond normal anti-tank weapons, a delay action mode designed to blow open walls and create an entry into buildings. When fighting in urban environments, the ability to avoid entering though doors and windows can mean avoiding ambush or booby traps.

The weapon is “among the lightest in its class,” according to the Singaporean Defense Ministry, and extremely versatile.

According to Dynamit Nobel Defense, the MATADOR is capable of firing smokescreen and illumination munitions in addition to its anti-armor, vehicle and tank functions.

It has a maximum effective range of 500 meters, according to technical specifications published by the Singaporean Defense Ministry.

The MATADOR is in use by several states, including the Israel Defense Forces, where it has seen effective and active service. Among some IDF soldiers, the weapon is considered too expensive to fire in training. The wall opening function is particularly valued by IDF soldiers, who have used it in heavily built-up environments such as the Gaza Strip.

 

Can Germany afford to cut off Russian energy supplies?

Speaking to journalists in London alongside UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, "Germany is actively working to get independent from the import of Russian oil and we will be able to make it during this year.”

The statement seems to be aimed at pleasing the Anglo-sphere which has taken much tougher and quicker measures on banning Russian energy imports over Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine. 

Germany is heavily reliant on Russian energy, in particular gas. Back at home, there has been alarm among industry chiefs and politicians saying it would lead to huge rises in energy prices as well as shortages of energy to serve the country as well as ordinary households. 

Any quick measures to completely shut the tap on Russian energy may cripple Europe’s strongest economy. A German government source told British media “what use to anybody is a weakened Germany?” 

Berlin has already established a crisis team to deal with the contingency plans, something that Germany's industrial sector has sounded the alarm over saying they would be forced to shut production. 

The country announced its withdrawal from nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, and in 2019 said it would pull the plug on coal-fired plants. 

Businesses across the country are bracing themselves for supplies to be cut either from Russian retaliation over Western sanctions or Berlin joining the Western energy embargo on Russian oil and gas supplies. 

The owner of a hi-tech mechanical engineering company in the country’s west spoke to media on condition of anonymity and refused to name his company because of fears of appearing to support Russia’s military operation.”

He said, “If Russian gas is cut off, his business which has been operating for a century now “will likely not survive”. 

He also added that “It would be a disaster, one which would have seemed almost unthinkable just two months ago, but which right now feels like a very realistic prospect.”

Industry managers and political leaders have warned that the damage which will be imposed on Germany by abandoning Russian energy supplies would be far stronger than any benefit it would bring to Ukraine.

Millions of German households without heat this winter is one of the most concerning matter. The other major concern is the hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses which are interlinked with manufacturing giants, all dependent on gas to operate. 

Both small and giant business companies are likely to suffer with huge rises in energy prices as well as mass shortages.

The German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) has come up with a model for how Germany can free itself from Russian supplies by this year’s winter.  

The popular think tank has suggested alternative suppliers and lower consumption which means households will have to turn down thermostats and use less warm water during what are usually long and very chilly winter conditions in Europe. 

The DIW report itself acknowledges that added supply alone will not be enough to make up the current volume of Russian gas imports but said it is possible if there is a clampdown on consumer demand.

That has been echoed by the German Economics Minister, Robert Habeck, who has urged German households and industries to turn down the thermostat. But the question is who will carry that burden? 

German households are already suffering from high inflation rates and energy prices had already soared before the crisis in Ukraine even began. 

A spokesperson for the economics ministry noted, “The question of prioritization is a very difficult decision, requiring consideration of a wide range of consequences.”

The Federal Network Agency, which claims to ensure fair access to gas, electricity and other vital services, has sent a questionnaire to all German businesses, essentially asking them to state their individual arguments for the right to access gas.

Forced by the high energy costs some businesses, such as the porcelain manufacturer KPM, founded in 1763, are working overtime to produce as many goods as possible before the Russian taps are turned off. “Who knows for how long we will have gas?” its CEO, Martina Hacker, told German media. “We can’t produce porcelain without it.”

Some analysts are envisaging an unpleasant battle between different sectors over who deserves the energy most. There have been discussions of dark scenarios over supply chains, which are already under pressure amid the covid pandemic, collapsing altogether with businesses forced into bankruptcy along with mass unemployment.

The chemical giant, BASF, the largest in the world and one of Germany’s biggest purchasers and consumers of energy says around 40,000 employees would have to be put on short-time working hours or laid off.

BASF said, "The consequences would not only be reduced work hours and job losses, but also the rapid collapse of the industrial production chains in Europe, with worldwide consequences.”

The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), has also warned that chemical plants are too complex, they "can't just be switched off and on again like a microwave oven. Once chemical plants are shut down, they remain silent for weeks and months. It said the disruption would have a huge domino effect through almost all industries."

Other businesses are considering moving abroad to save their business and workforce, something that will cause further harm to the German economy. 

The  foreign affairs commissioner of European Union, Josep Borrell has also warned ,“This isn't just a German problem because the German economy is very closely tied to the European economy." 

Fitch Ratings has warned that replacing Russian natural gas in Europe could be challenging in the short term and it will keep gas prices high.

According to the credit rating agency, Europe as a whole import around 60% of its total natural gas demand, as Russia is supplying about a third of the continent’s consumption, which amounts to 152 billion cubic meters (bcm) by pipeline and 17 bcm as liquefied natural gas (LNG). 

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which Berlin has now scrapped, was meant to deliver from Russia as much as 70% of Germany’s gas requirements. Russia accounted for 55% of Germany's gas imports in 2021 and 40% in the first quarter of 2022.

Analysts say America would love to fill the void but there are too many logistics problems down the road for Washington.

Alternatives supplies have been suggested but it looks very difficult for Germany to shield its economy until it completely ends its dependency on Russian energy.  

Habeck has previously said that it would take around two years. But he also admitted “we face turbulent days ahead” amid the expected rise in gas prices.

BASF says a realistic time frame, for Berlin to wean itself off Russian gas would be four to five years. Some experts have said it is more likely to take until the end of the decade. That is unless Moscow itself does not halt supplies very soon unless it receives payments in its own currency the Ruble. 

Germany finds itself between a rock and a hard place by trying to join the Western sanctions alliance against Russia at the expense of German households and businesses along with the country’s economy.  

Those advocating the advance of peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow amid the West’s pumping of weapons to Ukraine, which some experts argue is prolonging the conflict; may help shape the direction Germany takes and what is currently the largest economy in Europe.

United States responsible for bringing Vienna talks to a halt

The United States is solely responsible for the current state of the Vienna talks, said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman on Monday. “Let us all not forget that the government which is in front of us today is not a government that adheres to its obligations,” Saeed Khatibzadeh told reporters in his weekly presser. 

The spokesman said the United States is trying to hold the remaining issues pertaining to the Vienna talk hostage to its internal affairs.

“Iran and Iranians cannot be patient forever. If the United States wants to reach an agreement, it must make a political decision as soon as possible,” he asserted.

When asked about European Union coordinator Enrique Mora's trip to Tehran, Khatibzadeh said, “During this trip, he carried some points of views and wanted to exchange opinions with us. We told Mora about our point of view. Our messages and demands were clear from the beginning. Mora's trip was to get us all out of this situation. Iran tried to use another way to resolve the remaining issues. So far, Iran has had the most initiatives.”

The spokesman continued by saying that Iran is waiting for the other side's response, but it has not received it yet.

On the pause in the talks, the diplomat said it was clear to Iran in the last two weeks that Joe Biden and the White House have not made their decision and have taken the whole agreement hostage to US partisan and internal affairs. 

“The Biden administration takes the same approach that has led to the failure of many international agreements, which is to make an international agreement subject to their own internal conflicts.

The JCPOA agreement and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 are the perfect examples, and it is in this context that the Biden government must make its political decision,” Khatibzadeh noted.

The spokesman said that the United States is responsible for bringing the talks to a halt. 

“The solution is in the White House,” he reiterated. 

The US must respond logically to Iran's reasonable demands, which are approved by the P4+1 members, so that we are ready to return to Vienna, Khatibzadeh noted. 

“An agreement is very much available if the United States understands that we will not cross our red lines or fall short of our demands,” the diplomat asserted.

Responding to a question about the remaining issues in the negotiations, the spokesman said, “It was not at all like we connected the West Asia region to the JCPOA." 

Iran's benefits from the JCPOA are in accordance with the text of the agreement, and UNSCR 2231 is the main mission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the spokesman said. 

“Now, in the final steps, the United States is trying to prevent Iran from benefitting from the various aspects of the JCPOA. We are at a point where the Biden administration wants to follow the failed legacy of the Trump administration or act as a semi-responsible government. International actors see that the Biden government is following the same path of the previous government,” Khatibzadeh pointed out.

Responding to a question, the diplomat said that illegal and unilateral sanctions have become a common practice in the United States.

“The US believes that it is the police of the world and the domestic laws of this country are international laws. Bullying will not work,” the spokesman remarked. 

Khatibzadeh once again reiterated that Iran’s red lines are the interests of the people and the benefit of what was once discussed.

“The whole deal depends on Washington's political decision. This has been the situation for weeks now. It is a matter of individuals and entities that should be removed from the sanctions list according to the JCPOA, in addition to Iran's economic benefits from the deal. These are issues that are delaying Washington's political decision,” he stressed. 

The diplomat stated that the Biden government must show that it is the true representative of the American people.

“We have not yet received the final answer from Washington, and if Washington's answer is appropriate, we can go to Vienna as soon as possible with the points raised, not for new negotiations, but to finalize the agreement. The response and signal must come from Washington,” the spokesman concluded. 

Talks in Vienna over reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have come to a standstill due to the Biden administration’s inability to make tough political decisions.

 

Germany to send anti-tank weapons and missiles to Ukraine

Germany will provide anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced Saturday. This is a major reversal of Berlin’s longstanding policy of banning weapon exports to battle zones.

“The Russian attack marks a turning point. It is our duty to do our best to help Ukraine defend against the invading army of Putin. That’s why we’re supplying 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles to our friends in Ukraine,” he wrote in a Twitter post.

US President Joe Biden had authorized an additional US$350 million in military assistance from Pentagon inventories, including anti-armor, small arms, various munitions, body armor, and related equipment. The White House also reportedly asked Congress to provide US$6.4 billion in extra funds to assist Ukraine.

 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed Germany’s change of stance: “Keep it up, Chancellor Olaf Scholz! Anti-war coalition in action!”

Berlin Saturday authorized NATO partners the Netherlands and Estonia to deliver German-made weapons to Ukraine.

The batch of weapons included 400 RPGs from the Netherlands and old GDR howitzers from Estonia.

Germany has a long-standing policy of not exporting weapons to war zones, rooted partly in its bloody 20th-century history and resulting pacifism. Countries aiming to pass on German weapons exports need to apply for approval in Berlin first.

Scholz had repeatedly referred to this policy in recent weeks when refusing to deliver weapons to Ukraine.

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine is entering the third day, fighting broke out at the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital city Kyiv, which is regarded as the primary goal of the Russian forces.

United States and UK officials said the Russian forces were about 18 miles, or 30 kilometers, from the city center.

The speed of the advance has been slowed “likely as a result of acute logistical difficulties and strong Ukrainian resistance”, the UK’s Ministry of Defense said.

However, a Pentagon official warned the situation may change rapidly.

“It’s a battlefield and events on the battlefield are dynamic and they can change very, very quickly,” the official said.

More than 100,000 Russian troops have entered Ukraine, Zelensky said in a Twitter post.

United States and allies getting ready to kick certain Russian banks out of SWIFT

The White House on Saturday announced that the United States and allies will kick certain Russian banks out of a major international banking system, a significant step in a bid to cripple the Russian economy in response to its invasion of Ukraine. 

The Biden administration and European allies agreed to cut Russia out of access to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a rapid shift from just days ago when it appeared such a move was unlikely in the near future.

The US and European nations also committed to imposing measures to prevent the Russian Central Bank from using its reserves to undermine sanctions and boost the ruble.

The announcement came via a joint statement from the leaders of the United States, the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada. The leaders called Russian attacks on Ukraine "an assault on fundamental international rules and norms that have prevailed since the Second World War, which we are committed to defending."

"We stand with the Ukrainian people in this dark hour. Even beyond the measures we are announcing today, we are prepared to take further measures to hold Russia to account for its attack on Ukraine," they said in the statement.

Banks across the world use SWIFT to finalize transactions and transfers. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT would make it incredibly difficult for its banks to operate efficiently but could also wreak economic havoc for European nations that depend on Russian oil and natural gas exports. 

If a Russian bank that has been removed from SWIFT wants to make a transaction with a bank located outside of Russia, it will need to use the telephone or a fax machine, a senior administration official told reporters.

Biden on Thursday had indicated kicking Russia out of SWIFT was not part of the initial rounds of sanctions because not all European allies were on board with the measure. But as fighting intensified in Ukraine in recent days and Russia moved close to the capital of Kyiv, pressure grew for Western nations to offer a tougher response.

Additional measures announced on Saturday included limitations on the use of so-called golden passports that allow wealthy Russians with connections to the Kremlin to become citizens of other countries and access their financial systems.

The US and its allies also said they would announce a task force to ensure the effective implementation of the coordinated sanctions being imposed on Russia.

The Biden administration and European allies have unveiled multiple rounds of sanctions in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began late Wednesday night. The US has sanctioned multiple Russian financial institutions to freeze their US assets as well as a list of several Russian oligarchs.

The White House on Friday announced additional sanctions against Russian President Vladimir Putin and a dozen of his top advisers, freezing any of their assets in the United States.

Imposing sanctions on Russia's central bank could crush the country's economy and financial sector; depending on how severely Western allies restrict its assets.

With limited access to its foreign reserves, Russia could face serious challenges keeping targeted banks afloat and mitigating the economic impact of sanctions. A total freeze on foreign reserves would likely devastate the Russian economy, cause a domestic financial crisis and leave the ruble worthless.

The United States has targeted the central banks of only North Korea, Iran and Venezuela with sanctions — nations with limited leverage over the global economy. Taking action against the Russian central bank could pose its own economic risks for the US and allies. The Biden administration and western allies have been wary of any sanctions that could limit access to Russian petroleum or natural gas exports.

"Our calculus is we have two choices," the senior administration official told reporters on Saturday. "Either we continue to ratchet costs higher to make this a strategic failure for President Putin, or the alternative, which is unacceptable, and that would be allowing unchecked aggression in the core of Europe."

 

Biden imposes Nord Stream 2 sanctions

Joe Biden, President of United States on Wednesday announced sanctions against Nord Stream 2, the company behind Russian natural gas pipeline in response to Moscow's decision to send troops into eastern Ukraine.  

Biden said in a statement that his administration would put sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, the parent company of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and its corporate officers.

"These steps are another piece of our initial tranche of sanctions in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. As I have made clear, we will not hesitate to take further steps if Russia continues to escalate," Biden said.

Last year, the Biden administration waived sanctions on the pipeline — generating pushback from Democrats and Republicans alike, who said it should take a harder line on Russia.

The administration’s decision to waive sanctions on the pipeline was widely viewed as a move meant to appease Germany after relations faltered under the previous Trump administration. 

But following Russia's incursion into breakaway regions in Ukraine this week, Germany also turned against the pipeline. On Tuesday, it announced that it would block its certification. 

The pipeline is completely built but was awaiting regulatory review before it could be operational. 

In recent weeks, Biden had promised to halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, but German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had stopped short of explicitly promising to block the pipeline in an appearance at the White House earlier this month. 

Biden on Tuesday announced other sanctions against Russian financial institutions, elites and sovereign debt.

The administration also sent additional troops to Germany, Poland and Romania.

Biden administration officials have said the U.S. is prepared to impose more stringent sanctions if Russia launches a broader invasion of Ukraine.  

Domestically, the new sanctions against Nord Stream 2 move helped advance some of Biden's State Department nominees, as Sen. Ted Cruz said he would lift a hold he had placed on them in response to last year's waiver.

“President Biden made the right decision today," Cruz said in a statement. "Allowing Putin's Nord Stream 2 to come online would have created multiple, cascading, and acute security crises for the United States and our European allies for generations to come."

However, he also called for "additional steps inside the Biden administration and in Congress to permanently lock in sanctions."

The decision to sanction Nord Stream 2 AG also won Biden praise among Democratic critics of the pipeline. 

“I’ve long opposed NS2, which is why I wrote the bipartisan sanctions law to stop it,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen tweeted. “Every diplomatic lever must be pulled to punish Putin for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty & threatening Europe’s security.”  

Biden delivered a speech on Tuesday announcing the first tranche of sanctions on Russia, saying Putin’s moves against Ukraine represented the beginning of an invasion.

Asked whether the White House could say definitively that the pipeline would not move forward permanently, Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Wednesday the pipeline is “not moving forward right now.”

 “It’s currently dead at the bottom of the sea,” she continued. “It is not happening. It’s not moving forward. It hasn’t been operational for some time.”

Despite recent hurdles for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Russia is still a major supplier of fuel to the rest of Europe — providing about 35% of the continent's natural gas.

 

Iran welcomes US sanctions move but terms these insufficient

The steps taken by the United States on lifting sanctions are ‘good but not enough’, Iran said following Washington’s announcement it was waiving sanctions on Iran’s civil nuclear program.

The US action came as talks to restore a 2015 deal between Tehran and world powers over its nuclear program reached an advanced stage, with the issue of sanctions relief a major issue.

“The lifting of some sanctions can, in the true sense of the word, translate into their goodwill. Americans talk about it, but it should be known that what happens on paper is good but not enough,” Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said, quoted by ISNA news agency.

The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council also reflected Tehran’s view that the US move falls short.

“Real, effective and verifiable economic benefit for Iran is a necessary condition for the formation of an agreement,” Ali Shamkhani said in a tweet.

“The show of lifting sanctions is not considered a constructive effort.”

The US State Department said on Friday it was waiving sanctions on Iran’s civil nuclear program in a technical step necessary to return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

Former US President, Donald Trump withdrew from the pact in 2018 and re-imposed crippling sanctions on Iran, prompting the Islamic Republic to begin pulling back from its commitments under the deal.

The waiver allows other countries and companies to participate in Iran’s civil nuclear program without triggering US sanctions on them, in the name of promoting safety and non-proliferation.

Iran’s civil program includes growing stockpiles of enriched uranium.

Amir-Abdollahian reiterated that one of the main issues in the JCPOA talks is obtaining guarantees that the US will not withdraw from the 2015 deal again.

“We seek and demand guarantees in the political, legal and economic sectors,” he said, adding “agreements have been reached in some areas”.

Iran is negotiating with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia directly and with the US indirectly in the Vienna talks, which different parties say have reached a stage where the sides have to make important political decisions.

“Our negotiating team in the Vienna talks is seriously pursuing obtaining tangible guarantees from the West to fulfill their commitments,” said Amir-Abdollahian.

Foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said, “Iran is carefully considering any action that is in the right direction of fulfilling the obligations of the JCPOA”, Iranian media reported.

The European parties to the talks urged Iran to seize the opportunity of the US waivers.

“This should facilitate technical discussions necessary to support talks on JCPOA return in Vienna,” negotiators of Britain, France and Germany said in a joint statement on Saturday.

“We urge Iran to take quick advantage of this opportunity, because the timing of the waiver underscores the view we share with the US, we have very little time left to bring JCPOA talks to a successful conclusion.”

Ukraine accuses Germany of encouraging Putin

Foreign Minister of Ukraine has accused Germany of undermining unity among the country's allies and of encouraging Vladimir Putin by refusing to deliver arms to Kyiv.

Earlier, German Defence Minister said Berlin would set up a field hospital in Ukraine amid the security crisis between the West and Russia. But Christine Lambrecht said that sending military aid now would not help defuse the crisis.

"Today, the unity of the West with Russia is more important than ever. To achieve it and deter the Russian Federation, we are all working together," Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba responded via Twitter.

"German partners must stop such words and actions to undermine unity and encourage Vladimir Putin to a new attack on Ukraine."

The Ukrainian foreign minister added that Kyiv was grateful to Germany for its support and diplomatic efforts in recent years. "But Germany's current statements are disappointing and run counter to this support and effort," he added.

The United States, the United Kingdom and the Baltic states have promised to send weapons to Ukraine to respond to the military threat from Russia, which has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along the border.

Washington announced the first delivery of "lethal aid" to Kyiv late on Friday.

Moscow denies planning to invade Ukraine, but is demanding security guarantees from the US and NATO, including a permanent ban on Ukraine joining the Western military alliance.

German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said in an interview with the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that the field hospital will be delivered in February, with training for staff provided, at a cost to Germany of €5.3 million.

"We have already provided respirators," the minister said, adding that Germany was already treating in German hospitals Ukrainian soldiers seriously wounded in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

"So we are standing alongside Kyiv. Now we should do what is within our power to defuse the crisis," Lambrecht said. However, "the delivery of weapons would not currently contribute" to achieving such a goal, she added.

This position formed a "consensus within the federal government" led by Olaf Scholz, the Defence Minister said.

Germany's refusal to send weapons to Ukraine contrasts with the positions of the UK, Poland and the Baltic states. The Defence Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania issued a statement saying they received US approval to send Stinger air defense missiles and Javelin anti-tank missiles to strengthen Kyiv's defences.

Lambrecht described as a "red line" for NATO the right of each sovereign state to decide whether to join the Western military alliance, saying Russia had no veto. But the West was ready for dialogue with Moscow and to take Russian interests into account, she said.

 

 

Can United States shut down Russian gas pipeline?

Democrats are headed for a showdown with Senator Ted Cruz over his bid to force the Biden administration’s hand over a Russian gas pipeline. 

As part of a deal reached by Cruz and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, the Senate will vote next week on legislation from the conservative firebrand to put sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will carry gas from Moscow to Germany. 

Cruz needs help from 10 Democrats to get the bill through the Senate, and said he thinks his prospects for hitting that threshold are good. But Democrats are raising red flags over the bill, even though they’ve previously supported similar sanctions. 

”I’ve been talking to a number of my colleagues, and they have raised some serious questions about the Cruz amendment. … It’s a little much,” said Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, asked if 10 Democrats would support the bill. 

Cruz’s legislation requires the administration to impose sanctions related to the pipeline within 15 days of the bill becoming law, but a big sticking point for Democrats, raised by senators are restrictions on President Biden’s ability to waive the sanctions, including the ability for Congress to vote to reinstate the penalties if they are waived. 

“I’ve been opposed to Nord Stream 2. I am still opposed to Nord Stream 2. There are some things though in the Cruz amendments are unprecedented. That gives me a pause,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. 

Senator Tim Kaine noted that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he serves on with Cruz, had been pretty uniformly against Nord Stream 2 and in support of sanctions but the question is what are the conditions, does the executive get the ability to waive sanctions?

The vote could be politically awkward for Democrats, forcing them to pick between supporting a president they align with politically or cracking down on a pipeline they oppose even if they disagree with Cruz’s tactics. Cruz has also opened the door to releasing part of his blockade on Biden’s nominees if his bill passes the Senate. 

The Biden administration previously waived sanctions on the pipeline’s project company Nord Stream 2 AG, a subsidiary of the Russian-owned company Gazprom. Voting for Cruz’s amendment would effectively be supporting nixing Biden’s decision. 

Democrats have faced pressure from the Biden administration and European allies to reject slapping financial penalties on the pipeline. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken previously lobbied Democrats to quash Cruz’s proposal last year when he offered it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, a sweeping defense policy bill. 

Blinken, during a speech this week, argued that the pipeline could be used as a check on Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine, where Moscow has amassed troops along the border.

“This pipeline does not have gas flowing through it at present and if Russia renews its aggression toward Ukraine, it would certainly be difficult to see gas flowing through it in the future,” Blinken said. 

Germany is unlikely to certify the pipeline for operation in the first half of the year, according to the head of the federal authority for gas and infrastructure, Reuters reported, citing regulation requirements not yet met.  

Ned Price, a spokesman for the State Department, added that the administration is working with members of Congress and European allies “on a package of sanctions … that maximizes the potential costs to Russia if Moscow does continue with aggression against Ukraine.” 

Underlining the complicated diplomatic dance the White House is undertaking, the vote will coincide with diplomatic summits next week with Russia and other partners to address and tamp down the tension on Ukraine’s border. Russia has amassed nearly 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border, prompting fears of an invasion.

Kaine, who said he is still reviewing Cruz’s legislation, acknowledged that the Biden administration was worried about transatlantic tensions at a precarious moment, but noted that both a new German government and heightened Russian aggression could “change the dynamic a little bit.” 

“I want to hear what the administration position is, but President Obama was a friend and I voted for things he didn’t like. We do our job, and then the president gets to do his job. … If he really doesn’t like what we do he can veto it,” he said. 

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has sparked a wide, bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill over concerns that it only bolsters Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand over Europe.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, for example, recently co-authored an op-ed with Senator Rob Portman urging the Biden administration to “seriously reconsider the imposition of [Nord Stream 2] sanctions.”

The House also previously voted to approve Nord Stream 2 sanctions as part of its defense policy bill. But the provisions were dropped from the final House-Senate agreement. 

If Democrats block his bill, Cruz is already signaling that he’ll weaponize a “no” vote as Democrats being soft on Russia. 

 “Virtually every Democrat has voted for sanctions on Nord Stream 2 multiple times. If this were a vote on the merits it would be unanimous or nearly unanimous. There are multiple Democrats who have told me they are going to vote for it, or they are strongly considering voting for it,” Cruz said. 

Cruz added that supporting his bill “should be an easy vote,” before offering a likely preview of how he’ll characterize a defeat of the legislation.

“Each Democrat is going to have to make a choice,” he said, “whether their partisan loyalty to the White House is greater than their willingness to stand up to Russia and stop Putin’s aggression.”

Israel made efforts to derail Pakistan nuclear program

Reportedly, Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad is suspected of detonating bombs and issuing threats to German and Swiss companies in the 1980s that helped Pakistan in its nascent nuclear weapons program.

Lately, the prominent Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) reported on the findings. According to the paper, “The suspicion that the Mossad might be behind the attacks and threats soon arose. For Israel, the prospect that Pakistan, for the first time, could become an Islamic state with an atomic bomb posed an existential threat.”

The paper reported that Pakistan and Iran worked closely together in the 1980s on the construction of nuclear weapons devices. According to the NZZ, the intensive work of companies from Germany and Switzerland in aiding Iran’s nuclear program “has been relatively well researched.”

The paper quoted the Swiss historian Adrian Hänni who said the Mossad was likely involved in the bomb attacks of Swiss and German companies added, there was no “smoking gun” to prove the Mossad carried out the attacks.

The Organization for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia, a previously unknown entity, claimed credit for the explosions in Switzerland and Germany.

The NZZ reports on the role of the late Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic weapons program. He crisscrossed Europe during the 1980s to secure technology and blueprints from Western institutions and companies. The paper wrote that Khan met in a Zurich hotel with a delegation of Iran’s Organization for Atomic Energy in 1987.  The Iranian delegation was led by the engineer Masud Naraghi, the chief of Iran’s nuclear energy commission.

Two German engineers, Gotthard Lerch and Heinz Mebus, along with Naraghi, who earned his PhD in the USA, met with Khan’s group in Switzerland. Additional meetings took place in Dubai.

With the fast-moving efforts by Pakistan to jumpstart its nuclear weapons program, the US government sought, without success, to get the German and Swiss governments to crack down on companies in their countries that were aiding Pakistan. Suspected Mossad agents allegedly took action in Switzerland and Germany against the companies and engineers involved in aiding Pakistan.

According to the NZZ, “A few months after the unsuccessful intervention of the US State Department in Bonn and Bern, unknown perpetrators carried out explosive attacks on three of these companies: on February 20, 1981 on the house of a leading employee of Cora Engineering Chur; on May 18, 1981  on the factory building of the Wälischmiller company in Markdorf;  and finally, on November 06, 1981, on the engineering office of Heinz Mebus in Erlangen. All three attacks resulted in only property damage, only Mebus's dog was killed.”

The paper highlighted, “The explosives attacks were accompanied by several phone calls in which strangers threatened other delivery companies in English or broken German. Sometimes the caller would order the threats to be taped. ‘The attack that we carried out against the Wälischmiller company could happen to you too’ - this is how the Leybold-Heraeus administration office was intimidated.

Siegfried Schertler, the owner of VAT at the time, and his head salesman Tinner were called several times on their private lines. Schertler also reported to the Swiss Federal Police that the Israeli secret service had contacted him. This emerges from the investigation files, which the NZZ was able to see for the first time.”

Schertler said an employee of the Israeli embassy in Germany named David, contacted the VAT executive. The company head said that David urged him to stop ‘these businesses’ regarding nuclear weapons and switch to the textile business.

Swiss and German companies derived significant profits from their business with the Khan nuclear weapons network. The NZZ reported “Many of these suppliers, mainly from Germany and Switzerland, soon entered into business worth millions with Pakistan. Leybold-Heraeus, Wälischmiller, Cora Engineering Chur, Vakuum-Apparate-Technik (VAT, with the chief buyer Friedrich Tinner) or the Buchs metal works, to name a few. They benefited from an important circumstance. The German and Swiss authorities interpreted their dual-use provisions very generously. Most of the components that are required for uranium enrichment, for example, high-precision vacuum valves, are primarily used for civil purposes.”

The NZZ reported that recently the National Security Archive in Washington published diplomatic correspondence from the US State Department from Bonn and Bern in 1980.

“This shows how the US resented the two countries' casual handling of the delicate deliveries to Pakistan. In a note from an employee, Bern's behavior was described as a ‘hands-off approach’ - the local authorities were accordingly accused of turning a blind eye. In the now released dispatches, which were previously classified as secret, those companies are listed for the first time that the US has accused of supporting the Pakistani nuclear weapons program with their deliveries. The list included around half a dozen companies each from Germany and Switzerland.”

 

 

Europe decoupling from China would not be right, says Merkel

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that decoupling from China is not the right option for Europe, despite tense relationship. The outgoing leader told Reuters in an interview that Germany may have been naive in some areas of cooperation with China.

“Maybe initially we were rather too naive in our approach to some cooperation partnerships,” she said. “These days we look more closely, and rightly so.”

But, she said it was important for Germany and the European Union to continue to cooperate with China and to learn from one another.

“Total decoupling wouldn’t be right in my view, it would be damaging for us,” she said.

Merkel also said, Germany was continuously in discussions with Beijing on intellectual property and patent protection, “both with regard to Chinese students in Germany and German enterprises operating in China”.

Merkel has sought to engage with China during her 16 years at the helm and helped to nurture EU-China ties. She did not seek re-election in the September election and will step down once a new coalition government is formed.

China became Germany’s biggest trade partner in 2016 and its rapid economic expansion has fuelled German growth throughout Merkel’s tenure. Some critics say Germany is now too reliant on China, and becoming too soft on Beijing on awkward issues such as human rights violations.

Merkel’s government has said she always addressed human rights issues on her official visits to China – she has visited the country 12 times as chancellor – and has sought to diversify trade in Asia.

Her remarks come as relations between China and the EU are at a low point over a growing list of issues, including Hong Kong and Xinjiang. In May, the European Parliament halted ratification of an investment treaty with China after the two sides imposed tit-for-tat sanctions over Beijing’s alleged human rights abuses against Uygurs in the far western Xinjiang region.

Beijing hits back at Western sanctions against China’s alleged treatment of Uygur Muslims.

Beijing has also been angered by some European nations seeking closer ties with self-ruled Taiwan, which it claims as its own territory. Brussels was preparing to announce a new strategic format for liaising with Taiwan on trade and economic issues this week, but it was postponed at the eleventh hour, sources told the South China Morning Post. It is expected to be revisited at a later date, according to a European Parliament source.

As Brussels tries to balance ties between Beijing and Taipei, China is trying to re-engage with Europe. Zhang Ming, China’s ambassador to the European Union, has said there are plans to hold an EU-China summit by the end of this year.

On climate issues, Merkel told Reuters that she had urged Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in a phone call to use cleaner technology if new coal-fired plants were being built in China.

“I have just spoken to the Chinese premier and discussed whether it would not be better, if his country is going to build coal-fired power plants, to at least build the latest generation,” she said.

Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union, is headed for the opposition and likely to take a “hawkish turn on China” after she steps down, according to Noah Barkin, a Europe-China expert at Rhodium Group.

“The government that replaces her will also strike a different tone because it will include two parties, the Greens and Free Democrats, who support a harder line,” Barkin said.

“In her final months in office, Merkel has been doing all she can to ensure that her dialogue-first approach to China remains in place after her departure. But the political mood in Germany, as well as China’s own trajectory, suggest otherwise.”