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.

 

 

India launches nuclear powered submarine

According to South Asia Journal India has launched its third SSBN (Nuclear Missile Submarine) at Ship Building Centre (SBC) in Visakhapatnam. Neither the Indian Navy nor the Ministry of Defense confirmed the news but according to the sources in the SBC and Indian navy, the launch of the submarine was confirmed. 

The newly launched SSBN called S4 could be critical for India’s credible nuclear deterrence like the previous two SSBNs and could have serious implications for South Asian security.

The submarine has been built jointly by the DAE (Department of Atomic Energy), DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organization), Russian technicians and scientists, and Indian Navy personnel. The submarine has been relocated near the fitting-out wharf that was previously occupied by the INS Arighat which was launched in 2014 but still awaits its commissioning delayed due to pandemic.

As per the report, the satellite imagery shows that at 7,000 tons, the SSBN is slightly larger, with 125.4m load waterline measurement as compared to the 6,000 ton and 111.6m load waterline measurement of INS Arighat which is considered the lead boat in its class. Hence the S4 could be categorized as a successive boat of Arihant class variants.

The submarine shows the expansion of the vertical launch system of the submarine, it could support nearly eight launch tubes (missiles) which is double as compared to the previous SSBN. The submarine would be able to carry eight K-4 SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles) or 24 K-15 SLBMs with 3,500 km and 750 km strike range respectively.  However, the K-4 missile is still under development and has not been launched yet.

India in its quest to complete its nuclear triad plans to build six SSNs (Nuclear Powered Submarines). The naval platform is considered to be the most significant leg of the nuclear triad as it assures the second-strike capability of the state. But looking at India’s ambiguous NFU (No First Use Policy) such developments could become a huge threat to the strategic stability of South Asia.

The development of SSBNs by India is a matter of concern for not only Pakistan and the Indian Ocean littoral states but for the international community as well. With the development of nuclear-powered submarines, India has entered the club of a handful of countries that can construct, design, and operate such submarines.

The belligerent and aggressive attitude of India’s leadership raises serious concerns regarding responsible nuclear stewardship in India and threatens the strategic stability of South Asia. Construction of SSBNs and increased frequency of missile tests every year shows the aggressive posturing of India. Moreover, the deployment of nuclear weapons by India also requires the international community to reassess the non-proliferation benefits provided to India by various arms control and non-proliferation cartels.

Pakistan is also continuously strengthening its sea-based capabilities in order to deter India’s triad of land, sea, and air-launched nuclear weapons. There should not be any doubt about Pakistan’s capabilities and resolve to the challenges postured by the latest developments both in conventional and nuclear realms in South Asia.

Pakistan has already built Baber-3 (Sea Launched Cruise Missile) that has MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle) capabilities to counter the growing submarine capability of India. It would provide a credible second-strike capability to Pakistan which would augment the existing deterrence considering the provocative nuclear posture and strategies in the neighborhood by developing ship-borne nuclear missiles and nuclear submarines.

Other than that, even though India had successfully tested K-4 missiles, its range still remains sub-optimal which would require the SSBN to operate at the Bay of Bengal’s northeastern fringes. This means that these submarines in order to target China’s economic and political hubs would have to travel around the Bangladeshi and Burmese littoral waters. Hence India’s sea-based deterrence capability would remain incomplete unless it is able to deploy an SSBN fleet with intercontinental-range missiles.

European Union can’t afford to antagonize Russia

The geopolitical standoff over Ukraine increasingly risks triggering economic pain, with the European Union (EU) having a lot more to lose than the United States.

As the threat of Russian military action against Ukraine looms, economists are beginning to tot up the potential economic losses if President Vladimir Putin decides to invade and other governments respond with sanctions. Russia has repeatedly denied such allegations.

Russia ranks the fifth-biggest trade partner of European Union and its top energy supplier, as against this United States barely makes the top 30, according to an analysis by Ben Holland and Anya Andrianova. Russia also draws in money from European household names such as Ikea and Volkswagen.

That leaves EU officials nervous about imposing sanctions on Russia as they worry those as well as an outright war could choke off natural gas supplies in the middle of winter when these are needed the most.

“European energy prices are a major concern,” Tim Ash, Senior Emerging Market Strategist at Bluebay Asset Management, told Bloomberg Television. He said Putin wants the EU “terrified about gas this winter and being cold. He doesn’t want them to do anything if he goes into Ukraine.”

Bloomberg Economics’ model of the euro zone reckons the hit from higher energy prices could be as much as 1% of gross domestic product.

Meantime, JPMorgan Chase economists drew eyeballs on Friday as they detailed what would happen if a skirmish between Ukraine and Russia helped lift oil to US$150/barrel this quarter. They estimated such a shock would be enough to drive global growth down to 0.9% in the first half of this year and worldwide inflation to surge above 7%.

Gas is a particularly sensitive matter now, with Russia holding back supplies for the past few months. Prices have tripled, boosting the cost of electricity across the continent. It’s the main reason Europe is suffering a bigger energy shock than the United States.

“Were sanctions to be placed on Russia’s energy exports or were Russia to use gas exports as a tool for leverage, European natural gas prices would probably soar,” said Capital Economics analyst William Jackson. “We think they would far exceed the peak reached last year.”

 

 

Supply Chain Delays Worsen in United States

While a growing number of Los Angeles-bound cargo ships are now biding time off the coast of Mexico, the supply chain crisis progressed this week as consumers found empty shelves in stores across the United States.

“There’s a big population of ships off the coast of Mexico,” Kip Louttit, Director of the Marine Exchange, told The Epoch Times. “If you look at the Pacific, it kind of makes sense to go down there. The weather is better the further south you go.”

The number of ships waiting to deliver goods in Los Angeles has jumped about 12% since October 2021, when President Joe Biden announced the ports would be opened around-the-clock to ease congestion.

The marine exchange reported 190 ships of all types were waiting in line to dock at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports on January 19, 2022. In mid-October, the number was about 170.

It also takes about two months longer to deliver goods from Asia to the Pacific Coast now than in 2019, before the pandemic, according to Flexport, a San Francisco-based freight-forwarding company.

In early January this year, Flexport found that westbound shipments from Asia took an average of 110 days, a 65-day increase and a new record high.

Meanwhile, consumers continued to express frustration across social media with supply shortages. Photos of empty meat sections at a Tennessee Walmart have been shared, as well as empty shelves in Ohio, Missouri and around the country.

Retail shortages are widespread, Geoff Freeman, President and CEO Consumer Brands Association, a retail advocacy group, told the Associated Press earlier this month.

According to Freeman, typically US grocery stores have 5 to 10 percent of their items out of stock. Now, that rate is around 15 percent.

According to a recent poll, by the Consumer Brands Association and Morning Consult, 70% of respondents said they experienced shortages at grocery stores in December last year.

But Biden told reporters January 19, 2022 that the supply chain crisis did not occur during the holidays last year.

Empty shelves and a shortage of car parts, electronic chips and certain food products are becoming commonplace among businesses of all sizes in California, according to California Retailers Association President and CEO Rachel Michelin.

“It’s not getting as much attention as we were getting before, but there are still challenges,” Michelin told The Epoch Times. “I would say that on the supply chain side, it’s not getting any better.”

Michelin said small businesses continue to be especially vulnerable, not only because of the supply chain crisis, but also increased crime that is being reported nationwide and the ongoing disruption of COVID-19. “It is layer, upon layer, upon layer,” she said.

As a result, customers will likely have to start paying even higher prices for goods in addition to the current 7% inflation rate, she said.

Meanwhile, officials have not yet been able to predict when the shipping backlog will ease.

Flexport reported earlier this month that the increased demand for goods in the US is expected to stay and fixes by the Biden Administration have not panned out.

“Despite attempts in October last year by the Biden administration to unclog US West Coast ports there is still evidence that logistics networks remain congested, and will remain so, potentially for at least another year”, Flexport reported.

  

Russia offered Iran interim nuclear deal

Iran was offered an interim nuclear agreement by Russia with the knowledge of the United States. Citing numerous former and current US officials, NBC reported that Iran rejected Russia's interim proposal, which was reportedly given the go-ahead by the Biden administration.

One draft of Russia's proposed interim agreement would have seen the Islamic Republic forced to stop enriching uranium up to 60%. In addition, Iran would have had to dispose of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium.

In exchange, certain sanctions would have been lifted that meant Iran could have gained access to billions of dollars frozen in foreign bank accounts, including South Korea, where the US permitted to pay damages owed to an Iranian company in a move seen as a trust-building step.

However, Iran rejected Russia's proposal and the US distanced itself from Russia's attempts at an interim agreement, according to the report.

Earlier, the Islamic Republic denied a report it had reached a two-year interim agreement with world powers. An interim arrangement is not under serious discussion, NBC reported, citing a senior Biden administration official.

"Though we cannot speak for any discussions that may have taken place between Russia and Iran, at this stage we are certain that no such interim arrangement is being seriously discussed," the official reportedly said.

Russia's attempt at reaching an interim deal with Iran comes a day after Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke with his American counterpart Antony Blinken, when the latter warned that talks with Iran have reached "a decisive moment."

Blinken said that, while the window of opportunity to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) still exists, Iran's nuclear advancements would foil any return to the accord if a fresh pact was not reached in the coming weeks.

Other voices around the negotiation table seem more optimistic, with a European Union official saying on Friday that the Vienna talks are moving in the right direction and a final agreement may be within reach. Indirect talks between Iran and the United States on reviving the deal resumed almost two months ago

NATO members scramble to support Ukraine amid Russian threat

The threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine has sent NATO countries scrambling to provide military support to Kyiv. In recent weeks, Spain, France, Estonia, the United Kingdom and the United States among others have provided varying kinds of military support to Ukraine in anticipation of Russian aggression.  

NATO is under no treaty’s obligation to defend Ukraine because the ex-Soviet country is not a member of the alliance, but the group has made clear that it stands with Kyiv and has called on Moscow to de-escalate tensions. 

Some military movements appear to be posturing, aimed at deterring Russia from any aggressive actions, but other steps appear to be prepared for a serious conflict. Either way, experts say, the assistance could show Russian President Vladimir Putin that the cost of an invasion of Ukraine is too great.   

“There's clearly a sense that the military support provided to Ukraine would help Ukraine raise the cost to Russia of military aggression,” said former US Ambassador William Courtney, a senior fellow at RAND Corporation.  

Ukraine has asked to join NATO, a move that is staunchly opposed by Russia. Russian officials have demanded that NATO not extend further east, but the alliance has rebuffed these demands. The Kremlin has used this refusal as a justification to amass forces at the border, claiming unspecified security concerns. 

Russia has amassed at least 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, and US officials have warned that an attack could likely occur by mid-February.  

In recent years, the Ukrainian forces have been able to increase operability and protect itself against another invasion. Still, the Russian military is far more dominant and capable than its opponent.  

Courtney confirmed that NATO has no formal obligation to defend Ukraine, but added that the West’s military support to the Eastern European country has been “quite substantial” since 2014. 

At the time, Russian forces invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula.    

“Europe and the United States, over time, developed an increasing desire to help Ukraine advance internally both through reforms democratic and economic reforms, and also to move closer to the West which seems to be Ukraine's interest,” he said.  

One goal of aiding Ukraine is centered on the concept of “porcupine defense,” the idea that a country makes itself as difficult to invade as possible.  

“You provide security assistance and arms that are lethal that complicate Russia's ability to take large parts of Ukraine without getting beaten up in the process,” said Rachel Ellehuus, deputy director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

“So, they can certainly withstand a Russian incursion for a limited period of time, but not forever,” she continued.  

This method, combined with the alliance’s threats of severe economic consequences should Russia invade, could make Putin think twice about doing so.  

“The issue is helping to deter Russian aggression by making clear that the cost to it economic, military and the human costs of casualties will be greater than maybe expected before,” Courtney said.  

While the alliance is behind Ukraine, countries thus far have varied on the extent of their support.  

Over the past couple of weeks, Denmark decided to send four additional F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania for air policing and a 160-man frigate in the Baltic Sea. France, for its part, has offered to send troops to Romania.  

The United Kingdom also announced that it is sending Ukraine light, anti-armor defensive weapons systems, as well as a small number of UK personnel to provide training.  

Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania recently received approval from the US to send American-made weapons to Ukraine for additional defense.  

Estonia is providing Javelin anti-armor missiles, while Latvia and Lithuania are providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and adjacent equipment.  

“We sincerely hope that Ukraine will face no need to use this equipment and call on Russian Federation to seize its aggressive and irresponsible behavior,” the Baltic nations said in a statement.  

Spain announced that it is sending warships to bolster NATO’s naval forces in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and is mulling sending its own fighter jets to Bulgaria.  

But countries sending assistance must strike a delicate balance — helping Ukraine without doing anything that could provoke the Kremlin.  

Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, explained that recent efforts to provide assistance have been defensive in nature for this reason.  

“Given that diplomacy continues and that the preferred outcome by NATO countries is a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, NATO members are trying to find the right balance between improving the capabilities of the Ukrainian military to resist Russian aggression and taking steps that the Russians would see as a provocation,” Kupchan said.  

Further complicating matters is uncertainty about how Russia would invade Ukraine, should it choose to do so.  

Moscow has largely positioned troops along Ukraine’s northeastern border. On Tuesday, it announced that it is moving troops to Belarus for military drills that are scheduled for next month, when the West fears an invasion could occur.  

The drills put more pressure on NATO nations, as it puts Russian troops on Ukraine’s northern neighbor, giving Putin more options for a possible invasion.  

“I think the dynamic really changed when Russia sent forces into Belarus,” Ellenhuus said. “A lot of allies now worry that Russia is somehow preparing to invade Ukraine, both from the south and then also from, from Belarus.”  

A Russian invasion of Ukraine could trigger a rush to ensure that countries on its eastern flank are defended.  

The US, for its part, has no intentions of sending troops to deter an invasion, but has said if Russia invades, then it would send troops to bolster NATO’s forces along the Eastern Flank.  

President Biden has also repeated several times in recent weeks that if Russia decides to invade Ukraine, the US will slap devastating economic sanctions on the country. Vice President Harris echoed this same sentiment in an interview with Savannah Guthrie earlier this week.  

The US military has already sent the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group to take part in a NATO naval exercise in the Mediterranean, though Pentagon officials insist the drill are not in response to Russia’s recent aggressions. 

United States no longer supports EastMed pipeline

The United States no longer supports the proposed EastMed natural-gas pipeline from Israel to Europe; the Biden administration has informed Israel, Greece and Cyprus.

The reversal of position from that of the Trump administration was first reported in Greece earlier this month. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette expressed US support for the pipeline when they were in office.

Washington informed Athens it was reversing course from the Trump administration in a “non-paper,” a diplomatic term for an unofficial, or off-the-record, communication this month.

 “The American side expressed to the Greek side reservations as to the rationale of the EastMed pipeline and raised issues of its economic viability and environmental issues,” a Greek government source told Reuters.

“The Greek side highlighted that this project has been declared a ‘special project’ by the European Union and any decision on its viability will logically have an economic impact,” the official said.

The EastMed pipeline, meant to transfer natural gas from Israeli waters to Europe via Greece and Cyprus, was announced in 2016, and several agreements have been signed between the three countries on the subject. The three states aimed to complete the €6 billion project by 2025, but no financing has been secured for it.

The US Embassy in Jerusalem said that the Americans “remain committed to the energy security and connectivity of the Eastern Mediterranean.”

Among the proposals the US supports is the EuroAsia interconnector linking Israeli, Cypriot and European electricity grids, “allowing for future exports of electricity produced by renewable energy sources, benefiting nations in the region.” The interconnector “would not only connect vital energy markets, but also help prepare the region for the clean energy transition,” the embassy said.

The US Embassy also said this is “a time when Europe’s energy security is – more than ever – a question of national security,” and as such, the US is “committed to deepening our regional relationships and promoting clean energy technologies.”

The US Embassy in Greece made a similar statement last week, saying Washington still supports the 3+1 mechanism of meetings between Israel, Greece, Cyprus and the US.

Claims over natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean have been a point of contention with Turkey in recent years, with Ankara saying it should be part of the EastMed project.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took the opportunity of the US withdrawing its support to say. “If Israeli gas would be brought to Europe, it could only be done through Turkey. Is there any hope for now? We can sit and talk about the conditions.”

He also noted his recent phone calls with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and President Isaac Herzog and said engagement with Israel had improved.

Turkish state media channel TRT last week aired a documentary opposing the EastMed pipeline titled The Pipe Dream, which includes footage of State Department Senior Advisor for Energy Security Amos Hochstein discussing the matter before he was appointed to his current position.

Hochstein said he would be “extremely uncomfortable with the US supporting this project” because of its environmental implications.

“Why would we build a fossil fuel pipeline between the EastMed and Europe when our entire policy is to support new technology... and new investments in going green and in going clean?” he asked. “By the time this pipeline is built we will have spent billions of taxpayer money on something that is obsolete – not only obsolete but against our collective interest between the US and Europe.”

Hochstein said the project was not financially feasible. It would cost more than €6 billion, he said, adding that international financial institutions no longer are committed to investing in fossil fuels.

The pipeline plan was “totally driven by politics,” but “multibillion-dollar deals should be driven by the commercial side,” Hochstein said.

“This idea came up in 2016, but no movement has been made except for signing some contracts, MOUs [memorandums of understanding] and the big hoopla of politics... Some ministers in the region are talking about the EU supporting [the plan]; they agreed to a feasibility study on the project. That’s a big difference,” he said.

“This is politicians talking, but there’s [nothing] there,” Hochstein said. “This project probably will not happen because it’s too complicated, too expensive and too late in the arch of history.”

Gabriel Mitchell, director of external relations for the Mitvim Institute for Regional Foreign Policy, said Israel’s relationship with Greece and Cyprus, which has grown very warm in recent years, does not depend on the EastMed pipeline.

“The cooperation between the parties has expanded beyond the narrow scope of an undersea pipeline project, incorporating multiple fields and inter-ministerial cooperation,” he said.

Regarding Israel’s future in exporting natural gas, the EastMed was never its only option, Mitchell said.

“The story of the EastMed pipeline should serve as a reminder that these projects require a high level of commercial, technical and political feasibility,” he said. “As one door potentially closes, others could open that present a different but no less important set of commercial and geopolitical opportunities.”

“The EastMed pipeline’s feasibility issues were well-documented, but in the end, it may be other energy initiatives – such as the EuroAsia interconnector – that become the tripartite relationship’s flagship project,” Mitchell said.