Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine on Fire defies mainstream narrative on Russia-Ukraine war

 Article published in Travel Tomorrow

Ukraine on Fire presents a likely controversial overview of Ukraine’s political history leading up to the 2014 protests in Euromaidan and shedding light on today’s military developments in Eastern Europe.

Directed by Igor Lopatonok and produced by Oscar winner Oliver Stone, the 2016 documentary defies the mainstream media narrative on the geopolitical analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, spanning events from the World War II to the Cold War. The film features the international pressure over Ukraine — leading to an apparent coup d’état ousting the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich and culminates with the implications of NATO expansion.

In the documentary, Oliver Stone uses his critical lens on the Ukraine crisis, and more specifically on the role played by the US. Labelled as propaganda by the Western media, Russia’s argument of “denazifying” Ukraine as a justification for the invasion is analysed in Ukraine on Fire with the spotlight on a number of neo-nazis groups that, over time, seemed to have incorporated the Ukrainian National Guard.

Ukrainian Nazis joining forces with Hitler

In a throwback to World War II, the documentary denounces the estimated 80,000 Ukrainian ultra-nationalists — notorious for their cruelty towards the Polish, the Jewish and Russian people — who have joined the Schutzstaffel, the infamous Nazi SS.

In 1929, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was founded by Stefan Bandera, an ardent nationalist known by the CIA for leading a “reign of terror” and masterminding several ethnic cleansing operations, such as the 1941 Babi Yar massacre, where nearly 34,000 Jews were killed. However, after the war, Bandera fled to Europe, backed by the CIA for safe entry.

Cold War

“The CIA’s fingerprints can be found throughout the conflict,” the film stated, referring to the aftermath of the protests in Ukraine, both the 2004 and 2014 revolutions and events dating back to the Cold War. According to the documentary, CIA documents declassified in 2016 reveal strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.

Such ties would serve as a possible source of counter-intelligence against the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Ukrainian nationalists were part of numerous military operations, including Operation Belladona, Operation Lynx, and Operation Trident. Yet, during the Nuremberg trials in 1945-1956, Ukrainian Nazis were spared from proper justice. “By 1951, the Agency [CIA] excused the illegal activities of OUN’s security branch in the name of Cold War necessity,” reads a declassified memo from the CIA.

The Ukrainian ultra-nationalist movement kept growing with names like Dmytro Dontsov, Andriy Melnyk and Roman Shukhevych shaping the neo-Nazi movement. In 1989, the Ukrainian nationalist organisation Narodny Rukh (People’s Movement) was created, serving as an incubator for neo-Nazi leaders against the Soviet Union’s trajectory towards the West guided by Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost policies.

Shortly before the end of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Oleh Tyahnybok founded yet another nationalist group, Svoboda, which ideology was the purging of Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. As early as 2012, the BBC reported the danger of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists, particularly Svoboda, and the EU passed a resolution condemning the group as anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

US ties with Svoboda

Despite the warnings from Europe, Victoria Nuland from the US State Department met Tyahnybok, Svoboda’s leader, in February 2014, ahead of the Euromaidan protests. The plot thickens when Nuland was caught on tape with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, masterminding an apparent coup d’état. “Now it would be great to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, f*ck the EU,” said Nuland.

Recalling his troubled tenure as a President (2010-2014), Viktor Yanukovich told Oliver Stone: “My high-level contact was VP Joe Biden. We had frequent phone conversations but the problem was that Mr Biden said one thing but they did different things in Ukraine.”

As for Mr Pyatt, the US Ambassador, Yanukovich said he received visits from Maidan representatives all the time. “We got the impression that the headquarters in charge of the whole process was in the US embassy,” said Yanukovich.

EU and IMF pressure

Throwing back to 2013, Yanukovich explained that Ukraine was going through a difficult economic period and the country was torn between turning to the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or Russia. With an existing trade agreement with Russia, Yanukovich sought to negotiate a new — and better — agreement, but both the EU and the IMF offered “unacceptable solutions”, he said.

“A significant rise in utility rates, for electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level,” said Yanukovich about the IMF’s proposal. Ukraine suggested other solutions, but these were officially rejected by the IMF in November 2013.

Kyiv was left with Russia, which said it was ready for partnership if their interests were taken into account. Interviewed by Oliver Stone, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said that an agreement with Ukraine “would mean that EU goods would enter the Russian market without any negotiations”, which was not tolerated by the EU.

Talking about the trade agreement proposed by the EU, Yanukovich said that Ukraine couldn’t go ahead because it “required essential economic expenses and Europe didn’t provide any loss balancing.”

Euromaidan

After Ukraine’s decision to move towards the East for trade partnerships, the documentary reveals the manufacturing of a protest, with Euromaidan right behind the corner. As the November 2013 protest started in Ukraine, three new TV channels went on the air and suddenly became stunningly popular. Spilno TV was launched on November 21, Hromadske TV went live on November 22 and Expresso TV followed on November 24. These channels went viral supporting the protests, which were asking for an alignment with the EU and encouraging more and more people to go to Maidan.

Eventually, the protests led to overthrowing the President Yanukovich after an apparent coordinated action between the US and Ukrainian nationalist groups. Such outcome was reported by the filmmaker as the result of a successful staged revolution which included “money, the media and techniques”.

NATO expansion

A crucial element featured in the documentary is NATO’s military threat bordering the Russian Federation. NATO has not stopped expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from 17 countries in 1990 to 30 today, several of which were once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.

“Why do we react so vehemently to NATO’s expansion?” asked Putin. “We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can’t resist the pressure of the USA.”

Putin stressed the military threat that NATO membership poses to Russia, saying that “anything at all can appear in such country such as missile defense systems, new bases, or, if necessary, new missile strike systems.”

Putin’s lack of sense of security has been compared to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the US drew a red line in respect of the installation of medium-range missiles 70 km from its border and the world was at the brink of nuclear war.

“This is a very dangerous topic. It’s a topic of war. War between the US and Russia would be complete madness,” said Yanukovich referring to NATO expansion.

Described by critics as Russian propaganda, Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire 2016 documentary presents verifiable claims that bring a different perspective when reflecting on the military escalation in Ukraine and have recently been voiced by the US political scientist John Mearsheimer.

Europe in the crossfire of words and aggressive gestures

Article published in Katoikos

Russia and NATO: who is threatening whom? Wikimedia Commons

NATO and Russia

In her recent article “Russia – A Threat to European Security? A View from Germany”, Gabriele Schöler argues that NATO’s recent “counteraction” against Russia amounts to “provocative behaviour”, since it could be seen as a threat to Russian security. Since 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the loss of much of its territorial control and global influence. Not only has Russia lost its status as a major world power, it has given that very power up to its arch-enemy from the Cold War: the United States or rather NATO, when the latter integrated all the former Eastern European Warsaw Pact states and three former USRR republics to boot.

After this historical and political reasoning, Schöler openly asks: “Who is perceived to pose a threat to whom?” claiming that this is a more critical and logical question than “who started the conflict?”

As NATO troops are currently deployed in Poland and the Baltics, Schöler goes on by saying that deploying “NATO troops in Central and Eastern Europe on a permanent basis would be a clear violation of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris in 1997”. The act was initiated to ease Moscow’s concerns about NATO’s eastern enlargement and its original mission was to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security”.

However, as Russia started to regain political, economic and military strength, its leadership took a more confrontational stance which was not aligned with Western values. Published early in 2017 by the Royal United Services for Defence and Security Studies, the book “NATO and the North Atlantic: Revitalising Collective Defence” supports the argument that Russia is trying to meddle in Western affairs, claiming as its starting point that “Russia is blatantly attempting to change the rules and principles that serve as the foundation of European law and order.” The greater part of this work’s thesis puts Russia at the centre of the West’s military and defence concerns, giving NATO a palpable reason for its comeback as an essential international organisation.

 NATO’s revamped role

During the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate, frequently contested NATO’s existence, calling it “obsolete”, while accusing its members of not upholding their commitment of paying 2% of their GDP to the Brussels-based organisation.

In April this year, after a meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Washington DC, President Trump backtracked one of his most controversial campaign promises, saying NATO was “no longer obsolete”. According to the analyst Michael Chossudovsky, pro-NATO advisers influenced Trump to change his stance, showing that the US President is not exerting any presidential authority but caving in to the dominant interests of the US elites.

In Europe, NATO is widely perceived as an indispensable institution for the security of the continent, based on the argument of a resurgent Russia and a “vulnerable Europe” following the terror attacks in several European cities.

On the same note, Andrew A. Michta wrote for Carnegie Europe: “A Common Threat Assessment for NATO?” pointing out “two issues” that are rapidly rising to the top of the organisation’s agenda: “regionally, a resurgent and geo-strategically assertive Russia and globally, the accelerating threat of Islamic terrorism”. Michta goes on, saying that this is “a unique opportunity for NATO to align the security outlooks of key European members with that of the US”.

Nevertheless, in May, on the occasion of the first NATO summit attended by Trump, in Brussels, the US president kept his accusations towards 23 of the 28 NATO members of being freeloaders for not paying their fair share towards military protection. The US’ current defence budget of $824.6 billion is the second largest item of federal government expenditure after social security at $1 trillion.

Russia: Declining power or imminent threat?

Now, let’s take a look at how the Western media has been portraying Russia’s conduct. The Economist published in October 2016 “The threat from Russia”, where it highlighted the seemingly endless episode of “Russia hacking the American election” and touched on the “mass slaughter in Syria”, the annexation of Crimea and accusations of Russia talking casually about using nuclear weapons.

While the idea of a fragmented Europe is likely to be in the Kremlin’s interests, the Russian intervention in the Syrian conflict is evidently not in the West’s interests.

Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad said during an interview with a Chinese news broadcaster that “the only serious force effectively fighting the Islamic State together with Syria is Russia”. Assad went further, saying that the US deployment of military in Syrian territory was illegal since they were not invited. Interestingly, Reuters published a similar news piece – “Assad calls US forces ‘invaders’ but still hopeful on Trump” – yet it opted to leave out Assad’s declarations on Russia.

On the occasion of the forthcoming celebration of the 1917 October Revolution, Foreign Policy (FP) magazine wrote, last December, “The Soviet Union is Gone, But It’s Still Collapsing”, in which a number of FP’s contributors outlined the reasons behind the Russian Federation’s stagnation over time, mainly from the 2000’s. The authors pointed out that Russia should not base its foreign policy on ideology and claimed that the former Empire can’t lead through imperialism. Moreover, they claim that the advent of globalisation has only empowered autocrats.

Lenin and The House of Soviets in the background. (Photo: Marta Pacheco)

In March 2017, James Kirchick wrote for FP the article “The Plot Against Europe”, in which he envisages a gloomy future where Putin will roll into Estonia, triggering the first in a series of assaults.

FP magazine has also been publishing differing views on the so-called “Russian threat”. In his article entitled “Vladimir Putin Isn’t a Supervillain”, Mark Lawrence Shred argues that “Russia is neither the global menace, nor dying superpower, of America’s increasingly hysterical fantasies.” For the author, reality lies between the extremes – a declining power and an imminent threat. Russia is not nearly the global menace that many fear, nor is it doomed to collapse. Russia’s geopolitical strength is indeed constrained by its demographic, economic, social, and political weaknesses, but those aren’t as catastrophic as they’re often made to be.

On the other hand, in March 2017, EUobserver published an article “Russian missiles pose new threat to Europe”, in which critics from the US and Germany expressed concerns about the Russian missiles deployed in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. On 10 March, after the EU summit in Brussels, EUobserver delivered another alarming title: “EU alarmed by Russian meddling in Balkans”. At stake are growing fears of nationalist and ethnic tensions in the region that EU leaders believe to be the ideal opportunity for Russian interference in the form of disinformation campaigns.

Who is threatening whom?

Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, tensions have grown between Moscow and the West. Endless warnings were delivered by EU leaders until economic sanctions were imposed on Russia. While Russia claims Crimea as its rightful territory, the West, backed by NATO, started moving forward with military deployments in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. The Kremlin did not take long to react to the military deployed in Poland and the Baltics, branding it a threat to Russia’s national security.

The Cold War feeling has been growing more intense. At least, that’s what the media are conveying on both East and West. Will Putin make an attempt on European soil through the Baltic? What should NATO do to make it more difficult to present its largely defensive acts as aggressive moves against Russia?

Comparing the pictures one sees through the lenses of Western media on the one hand, and the RT and Sputnik, often rightly branded as the Kremlin’s propaganda outlets, on the other, one cannot help but see yet another war of words and (dis)information.

NATO’s Emergency Meeting: Is PKK behind the curtain?

Article published in Cafebabel

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the controversial president of Turkey. unaoc © Flickr

Turkey called a controversial emergency meeting with NATO. Is Erdogan targeting the Islamic State or taking revenge on the Kurds, after an historic result in the last elections? 

On 27 July, Turkey requested an extraordinary meeting at NATO headquarters, in Brussels. Article 4 of the founding treaty of the US led alliance enables all 28 members to request for consultations whenever they believe their “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is in danger. At stake is the so-called threat imposed by the Islamic State (IS), which has been increasing its sphere of influence. It has already destabilised the southern border of Turkey, killing over thirty people and injuring more than one hundred in Suruç, on 20 July, according to the mainstream media. This bloody event has placed Turkey directly in the conflict, as Turkish warplanes began striking militants targets in Syria last week. 

Since NATO’s creation in 1949, there have been only four extraordinary meetings under Article 4, the last, a requested by Poland in March 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. According to NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: "NATO allies follow developments very closely and stand in solidarity with Turkey." 

IS: an excuse to weaken PKK? 

Nevertheless, Turkey has seized the chance to attack Kurdish militants in strikes, risking a feeble peace process within the country. Listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by several states and organisations, including NATO and the European Union, President Erdogan probably thinks that this is the right moment to weaken the PKK. It is important to note that countries like India, China, Russia, Switzerland and Egypt do not recognise PKK as a terrorist or any kind of perilous organisation. 

However, the Kurds in Syria have been the most effective forces against the Islamic State as it was proved in Kobane. After having joined the fight against the Islamic State, some doubts have arisen amongst politicians worldwide as to whether the group should or should not be considered a terrorist organisation. Moreover, since 2014, throughout the media, mainly online, headlines backing up PKK’s actions and therefore question its progressive status have been growing, since the Kurds have been sacrificing their lives in Syria and Iraq. Even though, Turkish Prime Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has told the press “there is no difference between PKK and Daesh (Islamic State). You can’t say that PKK is better because it is fighting Daesh.” On the other hand, voices claiming PKK’s neutral stance has risen, including some coming from the European Union. According to POLITICO, Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of a powerful Iraqi Shi’a paramilitary organisation show that in fact Turkey is actually supporting the Islamic State as it's weakening its crucial enemy in Iraq, the PKK. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged President Erdogan to “keep measures appropriate”. It is indeed a very diplomatic way of asking for some consideration for the Kurdish community – so far allies against the same enemy – but Germany maintain its towards Turkey. As for EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, she called on Turkish foreign minister to encourage the government to return to negotiations with the PKK. 

The PKK was formed in 1978 and between 1984 and 2013 it has waged a military struggle against the Turkish state, demanding for cultural and political rights as well as the self-determination for the Kurds in Turkey, representing 10% to 25% of the total population. 

Elections in Turkey gave seats to Kurdish Party 

In the beginning of June 2015, Turkey’s ruling party, AKP, lost its majority after 13 years in power. The surprised outcome came along with pro-Kurdish HDP, People’s Democratic Party, gaining 13,12% of the electorate, securing 80 seats for the first time in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. This was a major shake for current President Erdogan, who was expecting a majority and intending to change the Constitution in order to implement a presidential system in the country. A HDP deputy, Sirri Sureyya Onder said "this was a victory of democracy over political corruption... of peace over war." 

This election gave hope to the entire Kurdish community, who suddenly got to see their voices being represented in the Assembly and therefore bigger chances for the creation of a Kurdish nation. 

 Conclusions 

Aiming to create a jihadist-free buffer zone in Syria, Erdogan is risking a civil war in his own country. It seems very explicit to the international community that the main goal of Turkey is the eradication of PKK. Now, with the hostilities in the air, “no man’s land” is now labeled in many territories across eastern Turkey as yesterday (2nd August), two Turkish troops died following a suicide attack by Kurdish PKK militants, according to BBC. Nevertheless, since 24 July, Turkey has been carrying out raids on PKK bases. Who is to blame then? 

In my opinion, we can’t really point a finger and blame the Kurds just because they were identified as a terrorist organisation by some countries as well as institutions, which happen to maintain good relations with Turkey. This is a problem which roots are deeply connected with societal motives and therefore with the capacity of the human being to accept the other. The Israeli-Palestinian case is comparable, even though the disparities between the two rival groups are even wider in the latter. 

The Syrian civil war is somehow being positive for the Kurds who have been able to show their strength and determination fighting the Islamic State. But the famous saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is apparently not suitable for the Kurdish community, according to the Turkish President. 

The conflict has just rekindled and the extraordinary meeting at NATO headquarters was just a question of diplomacy, a political necessity to justify unjustifiable actions. How much more bloodshed will we have to be confronted with?

It Smells Like World War III

Article published in Cafebabel

Heavy shelling to Islamic States militants in Mosul. Neal Bhai © Flickr

The “cold war” atmosphere is spreading across the West and the East while we witness deep changes in Europe. The economic crisis, which unleashed the downfall of many sovereign states in Europe contributing to the rise of populist and far-extreme parties along with the civil war in Syria, has changed the political and international world scenario. 

On the 5th February, the British paper The Telegraph published “Putin could attack Baltic states warns former Nato chief”. According to Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Putin’s excessive ambition could lead to a Russian attack over Eastern Europe. 

On the 6th February, the European EUObserver wrote “Nato to open facilities on Russia's doorstep”. The list includes bases in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania as well as a “training center” in Georgia. The aim is to create a defensive line between Eastern Europe and Russia. At this point, it is important to look back at history and see how the mainstream media have influenced the conflicts and wars from the past with terror campaigns in order to prepare the population. My humble opinion tells me that this looks openly like a defense maneuver. But let us move on. 

Syrian Civil War 

Since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, in 2011, little was done by the international community to stop the slaughter besides sanctions and diplomatic warnings. In the beginning, the UK was in favour of an international military intervention, while France and Germany were against it. Later, prime minister David Cameron changed his mind, after considering the hypotheses of an Islamic revolutionary army as a result. As for the United States, Obama was always against ground intervention, bearing in mind Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the American leader has adopted a different stance trying the diplomatic way, even after being proven the use of chemical weapons in Syria. 

On the leaked “Syria Files” from Wikileaks, we can read a political communication from US Brown Lloyd James, a powerful global strategic communication enterprise, dated May 2011, to Fares Kalla, a consultant inside the Private Office of the First Lady, expressing that “it is clear from US government pronouncements since the beginning of the public demonstrations in Syria that the Obama Administration wants the leadership in Syria to survive. Unlike its response to demonstrations in some other countries in the region, there have been no US demands for regime change in Syria nor any calls for military intervention. Criticism has been relatively muted and punitive sanctions - by not being aimed directly at President Assad - have been intended more as a caution than as an instrument to hurt the leadership.” 

Diplomacy. Maxime Bonzi © Flickr 

I am not apologist of military interventions in sovereign countries and I am against all forms of attempt to “colonize” independent yet fragile and unstable countries. International cooperation should be regardless of any kind of reward. I saw the international coalition against ISIS as a good attempt of trying to eradicate the extremist fanatic Islamic group, but we can’t help thinking of all the side effects caused by the airstrikes. Nevertheless, it has been shown that the air coalition has not been very effective. 

But something has changed recently. After the atrocious killing of the Jordanian pilot by ISIS, Jordanian air forces are repeatedly striking the Islamic State’s targets determined to eliminate the self-proclaimed caliphate and revenge its citizen. After being criticized of doing little to stop the Islamic State threat, the United Kingdom is about to send 2,000 special forces to help Jordan in this fight against ISIS. 

Divided European Union 

Meanwhile, we see a feeble Europe, we see a European Union not so united anymore, with Greece as the number one country who decided to shake up the Union a little bit. After extreme-left Syriza’s won the elections and since then pursued the end of the austerity, the South of Europe, hopeful of a debt release, are raising their voices against Germany, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, determined to block Greece’s attempt of reducing the debt. This led us to the recent approximation between Greek prime minister Tsipras and Russian president Vladimir Putin. 

The Eastern Block 

Putin has shown interest in collaborating with Greece after inviting Tsipras for a ceremony in Moscow on the 9th of May. In fact, the international community was caught by surprise after Tsipras’ victory had announced Greece’s objection on sanctioning Russia, but after all, Greece has decided to accept the EU’s statement regarding the sanctions towards Russia. Greek finance minister said “the problem was that he [Tsipras], and the new Greek government, were never asked [about the statement]!". 

We also see an authoritarian and repressive Hungarian government closer and closer to Russia. It is important to highlight that Greece, Hungary and Turkey are NATO members, with the latter having the 8th most powerful military army in the world (Russia occupies 2nd place in the ranking). 

But the pro-Russian block had another sudden ally after Cyprus president, Nikos Anastasiadis, had offered Russia Cyprian territory to implement military bases. Cyprus is a member state of the European Union, however, its president has been very clear against further sanctions towards Russia due to the Ukrainian conflict. Thus, we see an apprehensive United States towards Iran, trying to influence public opinion on how dangerous a country can be with WMD (remember Iraq?). Putin’s Russia knows he can count on both Saudi Arabia and China. 

Conclusions 

When speaking about international relations we can only formulate ideas based on our interpretation of the facts. Nothing is certain and what is today might not be tomorrow. But one thing is guaranteed on the current political and international scenario: we are assisting to a world division shaped by different interests and ideologies, but above all by the desire of world dominance. The United States are losing their characteristic superpower tag and Russia is emerging and making new friends. For the moment the European Union is battling to preserve peace, not only in Europe but across borders, yet the “economic war” imposed on its citizens has also contributed to the debate on whether Europe is good or not. I’m convinced we will witness big changes worldwide in the coming future.

Russia Raises Suspicions Flying Around Europe

Article published in Cafebabel

Russian T-95 bear bomber aircraft. North Dakota National Guard © Flickr

Not once, not twice, Russian aircraft was seen and intercepted by several European Air Forces. What is Putin up to? 

The announcement came from NATO but also from several European governments who had to prepare their air fleet in reaction to security measures after a large number of Russian aircraft were seen flying close to European airspace two days in a row. However, there were no actual incursions into national space which would have severely amplified the seriousness of the incidents. 

According to Jay Janzen, a spokesman for NATO’s military command in Mons, Belgium, the unusual activity took place on the 29th of October in Western Europe, when four Tu-95, strategic nuclear bomber planes, and four Il-78 tanker aircraft flew over the Norwegian Sea. 

Norway immediately sent F-16 fighter jets to intercept them. Six of the planes flew back to Russia but the other two Tu-95 skirted the Norwegian coast, flew past Britain and finally looped west of Spain and Portugal, attracting Portuguese F-16s. Afterwards, the two Russian bombers appeared to return to Russia. The defensive reaction was composed by Norway, Britain, Portugal, Turkey, Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. 

Russia: the Aircraft Respected International Law 

Provocative behaviour? This is happening at a fragile moment between the West and Russia – probably the worst moment of their relationship after the Cold War – and the European community was taken by surprise with these sudden movements perpetrated by Russia. 

As a response to Portuguese media, the Russian embassy in Portugal declared that the aircraft was respecting all International Law norms, and hadn’t entered foreign or restricted airspace. According to the embassy, International Law norms do not foresee any restrictions and they do not require giving pre-warnings regarding airplanes flying over international water. 

The Portuguese Defense Minister noted that “the interception was not in national airspace but in airspace under national jurisdiction,” said José Pedro Aguiar-Branco. On the other side of the Atlantic, U.S officials assumed the flights were a show of force by Putin’s government. 

This all make us think about our real security and freedom. Power game or not, Russia is now under observation and after all these mysterious incursions, we can assume that relations between West and East will be even harsher with Russia being the target of repeated criticisms and sanctions and shamelessly ignoring them.

Europe's Reaction to the Islamic State

Article published in Cafebabel

Air strikes against ISIS. © Stuart Rankin

As the situation in Syria and Iraq gets out of control, the international community has gathered in order to tackle the big threat which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) represents to Europe and the whole world. 

What began as an atrocious civil war in 2011 in Syria, has degenerated into a deadly repressive system that, along with Northern Iraq, is under the control of radical extremists who created a caliphate – a territory roughly the size of Portugal or Belgium. The actual war being fought is a regional and sectarian one likely to spread across Islam worldwide. The development of an armed and obstinate opposition movement in Syria, along with the discontentment of the Iraqi people under Nouri al-Maliki's leadership, resulted in the actual conflict that is taking place in Syria and Iraq. 

After the beheading of American hostages James Foley and British Steven Sotloff, the United States decided to attack the region occupied by ISIS, not only in retaliation but also as an attempt to exterminate this recent but strong and growing caliphate. The Islamic State has been provoking the Western community with repeated beheadings of Western hostages. The episodes of violence and disrespect for Human Rights are increasing and many European capitals agreed that it is time for action. 

Despite attempts by France’s Foreign minister Laurent Fabius to avoid France’s entrance into this bloodshed, after the announcement of the death of Hervé Gourdel, a French citizen, France has joined the USA in this air war. But the number of volunteers in this combat against ISIS is growing faster. In late September, the UK Parliament voted to join the coalition made up by the USA, France and Arab states. Also, Belgium and Denmark announced their support with military intervention. Likewise, Portuguese National Defence Minister José Pedro Aguiar Branco assured Portugal’s participation in the international coalition against the Islamic State. According to the online platform "Notícias ao Minuto," the minister said that “the collaboration might happen through several ways such as training, intelligence or humanitarian help.” 

The powerful European country known as Germany hasn't expressed so far any kind of support in this mission to overthrow ISIS. However, Interior German Minister Thomas de Maiziere has advised that ISIS is a “threat to public security in Germany,” making the distribution of propaganda material promoting the Islamic State illegal. 

Kurdish protest in Brussels. © Die Linke 

Meanwhile, the European Parliament was the stage for a Kurdish protest, last Tuesday, urging support in defending Kobane, the Syrian town overrun by the Islamic State. Turkey is under pressure to help Kurdish forces and after almost three weeks of fighting, the Islamic State controls about a third of the town, according to activists. "We don't understand why France is acting in Iraq and not in Kurdistan in Syria," said Fidan Unlubayir, member of the Federation of Kurdish Associations of France. The Western community is taking this strategy very cautiously to avoid any kind of complications regarding international justice laws. 

Nevertheless, the US and UK have already warned that air strikes alone won't stop ISIS fighters from overtaking Kobane. This is an important and dangerous move that will allow the rebels from the Islamic State to have control over a strategic wing between the two countries. The international community is apprehensive and awaiting further developments regarding this hideous battle. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, Turkey is currently in discussions with new NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg about a possible action against ISIS. "We are holding talks,” Turkey's Foreign Minister Cavusoglu said. “Once there is a common decision, Turkey will not hold back from playing its part." 

As we see the developments of this international strategy, we can't help but compare it with the first "war against terrorism," yet this time with greater international intervention and larger consequences if not suppressed. But we should ask ourselves... Is History repeating itself?