Baltic Blog......Security & Intelligence Briefs, International, Baltic & Russia News June 12 - May 16, 2008

The Mazeika Report
from June 11 - May 16, 2008



go to "blog" link to http://mazeikabloginternationalnews.blogspot.com/ Pass this link on to other readers!
Breaking stories.....your comments are welcome....
Place this "blog link" into your computer favorites for easy access.

=======================================================
Visit our interactive website and new featured listings....at http://www.ocrelocate.com/
Ocean to Mountains Real Estate for all Orange County

Tony & Danute Mazeika......
949 721-3445 949 929-9051 cell

Celebrating 21 years and more than 500 successful real estate transactions...
Don't miss incredible market opportunities....... Prices are at Year 2002 level...
May home sales up significantly ...Positive signs of market recovery is here.
Inventory is decreasing. Conforming & FHA Loan Limits Raised...Best home buys since 2002!
Demand for home inventory is up significantly. For those delaying a purchase, now is the time to consider selecting the home of your choice from the best available inventory in years- at historic rates and terms.
.You may qualify for a credit on closing costs and savings on escrow fees...Ask us how......
Don't delay..call us today! 949 721-3445
================================================================
Please support this unique blog.....Buy your ....Books, Dvds, and CDs
on our special link access to Amazon.Com
Tony & Danute
=====================================================================


Breaking news & commentary......................


Congratulations to the West Point Military Academy
graduating Class 2008
2008 NO MISSION TOO GREAT

The members of the West Point Class of 2008 are dismissed following commissioning
as second lieutenants at Michie Stadium May 31st. Secretary of the Army Pete Geren
delivered the graduation speech. This marks West Point's 210th graduation since its
founding in 1802.
View current & recent homepage photos, updated May 31



=====================================================

History textbooks promoting IslamNew report says Muslim activists 'succeeding' in expunging criticism

Posted: May 10, 200812:30 am Eastern
By Bob UnruhWorldNetDaily
History textbooks being used by hundreds of thousands of public school students across the U.S. are blatantly promoting Islam, according to a new report by an independent organization that researches and reviews textbooks.
WND has reported several times on issues involving the promotion of Islam in public school texts, including a recent situation in which California parents complained their children were being taught that "jihad" to Muslims means "doing good works."
The new report is from the American Textbook Council, which was established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials in history.
In the two-year project, whose report was authored by Gilbert T. Sewall, the ATC reviewed five junior and five high school world and American history texts, concluding:
Full story via active link: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=63872

=================================================================


'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.


By Fred HiattMonday, June 9, 2008; A17
Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."
Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.
But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.
And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.
For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.
Editorial page, Washington Post, 6/9/2008



============================================================


U.S. Navy ends search in Baltic for wreckage of plane shot down during WWII with American on board

ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:26 a.m. June 4, 2008
TALLINN, Estonia – U.S. naval experts failed to find any sign of the wreckage of a plane shot down over the Baltic during World War II with an American on board, a senior surveyor said Wednesday.
Naval officials on Wednesday called off the search for the Kaleva, which Finnish and Estonian experts say Soviet fighter-bombers shot down just days before annexing Estonia.
Among the nine people on board was Henry Antheil, a courier for the American embassy in Helsinki, whose death is considered the first U.S. casualty of World War II. He had rushed to Tallinn to evacuate sensitive documents from the American Legation with the Soviet Union moving into occupy Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The Kaleva crashed into the Baltic Sea on June 14, 1940, minutes after taking off from Tallinn, the Estonian capital.
Experts here say two Soviet fighter-bombers shot down the Helsinki-bound Kaleva, a German-made Junkers Ju-52 operated by a Finnish airliner. Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia have acknowledged shooting down the plane. Some believe the Soviet military recovered the Kaleva's wreckage in the years after its disappearance.
Estonian Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo asked the U.S. for help in determining what happened to the Kaleva, believed to be lying 300 feet underwater.
For six days, three Navy underwater craft searched the waters around the tiny island of Keri, some 20 miles northeast of Tallinn, but found sign of the plane, said Martin Ammond, senior surveyor aboard the USNS Pathfinder.
“There is no indication of a large human-made object in this area,” Ammond said. “I have a high level of confidence that the plane is not there.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20080604-0826-estonia-us-wwiiplane.html

=====================================================
Lithuanian troops stay on in Iraq

Published: June 04, 2008
KUT, Iraq, June 4 (UPI) -- More than half of the Lithuanian soldiers assigned to security details in Iraq chose to extend their tours of duty, the U.S. military said Wednesday.
The Lithuanian government voted to extend by two months the tour of duty for soldiers assigned to protect U.S. civil affairs teams working in the western Iraqi province of Wasit. Soldiers assigned to the unit were given the choice of rotating home or voluntarily extending their tours, a U.S. Army report said.
"Since they were already packed and I knew how difficult it would be, I chose to ask for volunteers to stay," said Lithuanian Chief of Defense Lt. Gen. Valdas Tutkus. Twenty-nine of the 40 soldiers chose to stay.
"Without them, we would be stuck," said Capt. Caroline Pogge with a U.S. civil affairs unit stationed in Wasit.
Lithuanian troops interviewed by the U.S. Army said completing the mission weighed heavy in their decision-making process.
"The mission is not finished when our time is finished. If we wanted to finish it, we had to stay," said Cpl. Rimvydas Stasaitis.
===========================================================


Geopolitical Diary: AK Party Closure and the Deferred Turkish Geopolitical Re-Emergence
June 6, 2008 0207 GMT

Turkey’s apex court on Thursday ruled to annul a Feb. 9 constitutional amendment spearheaded by the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party to lift the ban on women wearing headscarves in universities. In a 9-2 vote, the 11-judge panel of the Constitutional Court ruled for the reinstatement of the ban on the headscarf. This verdict is an indicator of how the Turkish Supreme Court likely will weigh in on another far more important case filed March 14 by Public Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya calling for shutting down the governing party.
The court’s move to overturn the law (which had passed in Parliament by a 411-103 vote) suggests it will be receptive to Yalcinkaya’s accusations that the AK Party is attempting to subvert the secular nature of the Turkish republic. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that the AK Party will join the graveyard of defunct Turkish parties. We do not rule out the possibility of some type of compromise in which the party survives in some form, however.
The historical battle between Islamist and secular forces in Turkey in the past five-and-a-half years has metamorphosed into a struggle over the definition of secularism. To a great degree, this is an ideological struggle between the Kemalist establishment and the AK Party. More importantly, however, it is a struggle for power between two types of elites — the old liberal one that dominates the unelected organs of the Turkish state and a new conservative one emerging via the ballot box.
In the past, the clash between the two sides has remained largely inconsequential — the establishment was easily able to get rid of the several predecessors of the AK Party by outlawing them, as they controlled a minor share in the 550-seat legislature and were partners in coalition governments. This time around, though, the stakes are much higher.
The result of a ban on the AK Party would likely be large-scale instability. Not only does the ruling party have a solid majority — in the form of 341 seats — it also controls the presidency. The shutting down of the AK Party could lead to a systemic crisis, not simply a minor case of political instability.
What is worse is the timing of this event. After having emerged from a financial crisis in 2001, the Turkish economy under the AK Party’s rule has improved tremendously, which is one of the key reasons for the party’s successful re-election in July 2007. Its ouster from power could lead to a reversal of the gains made in recent years.
Political stability and economic growth have allowed Turkey to re-emerge on the international scene for the first time in close to a century. The Turks have been looking at expanding their influence in all geographic directions — the West, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
If the case against the ruling party succeeds, Turkey’s attempts to re-emerge in the global arena would be halted by what appears to be a major crisis in the making. The AK Party remains highly popular, but it would be some time before a successor party could get off the ground. In the meantime, Turkey would slide back into a period (even if it is relatively brief) of coalition governments and the associated instability. There is a reason why the military, contrary to its past behavior, is not forcefully opposing the AK Party or even aggressively supporting the closure case against the ruling party.
http://www.stratfor.com/
============================================================



Oil and the Saudi Peace Offensive
Stratfor Today

June 2, 2008


By George Friedman
The Saudis are hosting an interfaith conference June 4. Four hundred Islamic scholars from around the world will be there, with one day devoted to interfaith issues. Saudi King Abdullah will open the conference, over which Saudi Shura Council head Saleh bin Huma will preside. This is clearly intended to be a major event, not minimized by the fact that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s most influential leader — who heads Iran’s Assembly of Experts, the body that elects and can remove the Supreme Leader — will be attending as well. Rafsanjani was specifically invited by the Saudi ambassador to Iran last Wednesday with the following message: “King Abdullah believes you have a great stature in the Islamic world … and he has assigned me the duty of inviting you to the conference.” We would not have expected to see a meeting on interfaith dialogue eve n a year ago.
For its part, al Qaeda condemned the conference. Its spokesman, Abu Yahya al-Libi, said of Abdullah via videotape that “He who is called the defender of monotheism by sycophantic clerics is raising the flag of brotherhood between religions … and thinks he has found the wisdom to stop wars and prevent the causes of enmity between religions and peoples.” He went on to say “By God, if you don’t resist heroically against this wanton tyrant … the day will come when church bells will ring in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula.” In the past, the Saudis have been very careful not to push al Qaeda, or the kingdom’s own conservatives, too far.
One reason for the change might be the increasing focus by conservative Saudi clerics on the Shia, particularly Iran and Hezbollah. Twenty-two leading conservative clerics issued a statement condemning the Shia as destabilizing the Arab world and hostile to Sunnis. More important, they claimed that Iran and Hezbollah are only pretending to be hostile to the United States and Jews. In a translation by The Associated Press, the clerics said that “If they (Shiites) have a country, they humiliate and exert control in their rule over Sunnis. They sow strife, corruption and destruction among Muslims and destabilize security in Muslim countries … such as Yemen.” This view paralleled statements by al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri a few weeks back.
No Fear of the Conservatives
To begin understanding all this, we need to start with the obvious fact that the Saudi government is no longer afraid of antagonizing conservatives. It should be remembered that there was extensive al Qaeda activity in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and 2004 after the Saudis increased their cooperation with the United States. The Saudis eliminated this activity, and the royal family has done extensive work in decreasing its internal rifts as well as reaching out to tribal leaders. Nevertheless, the Saudi government has been careful not to push too far. Holding a meeting to study interfaith dialogue would appear to be crossing the line. But clearly the Saudis don’t think so.
There are three reasons for this. First, al Qaeda has been crippled inside Saudi Arabia and in the broader region. The U.S. boast that al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run is no exaggeration. Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and Iraq are on the run because of a split among Sunni conservatives. Conservative Sunnis have their roots in local communities. Al Qaeda is an international grouping that moves into communities from the outside. As such, they threaten the interests of local Sunni leaders who are more unlikely to share theological values with al Qaeda in the long-term, and don’t want to be displaced as communal leaders nor want to see their communities destroyed in al Qaeda’s adventures. Theology aside, al Qaeda pushed its position too far, and those Sunnis who might theoretically support them have come to see them as a threat.
Second, and far more important, there is Saudi money. At current oil prices, the Saudis are absolutely loaded with cash. In the Arabian Peninsula as elsewhere, money buys friends. In Arabia, the rulers have traditionally bound tribes and sects to them through money. At present, the Saudis can overwhelm theological doubts with very large grants and gifts. The Saudi government did not enjoy 2004 and does not want a repeat. It is therefore carefully strengthening its ties inside Saudi Arabia and throughout the Sunni world using money as a bonding agent. That means that conservative Sunnis who normally would oppose this kind of a conference are less apt to openly criticize it.
Third, there is the deepening Sunni-Shiite split. In Christian history, wars between co-religionists like Roman Catholics and Protestants were brutal, and the distrust still echoes today. The Sunni-Shiite split, like the Catholic-Protestant split, ranges across theological and national interests. Iran is the major Shiite nation. It is mistrusted and feared by the Sunni Saudis, whose enormous wealth and military weakness leaves them vulnerable to the Iranians and forces them into an alliance with the Americans.
At this particular point, where Tehran’s mismanagement of Iran’s economy and particularly its oil industry has caused it to be left out of the greatest benefits of the surge in oil prices, the Saudis are worried that internal Iranian tensions and ambitions will cause Tehran at least to increase its subversive activities among Shia in the Arabian Peninsula and in Lebanon. Hence conservative Saudi clerics have focused their attacks on Iran and Hezbollah — officially without government sanction, but clearly not shut down by the government.
Protecting the Oil Bonanza
Behind all of this, something much deeper and more important is going on. With crude prices in the range of $130 a barrel, the Saudis are now making more money on oil than they could have imagined five years ago when the price was below $40 a barrel. The Saudis don’t know how long these prices will last. Endless debates are raging over whether high oil prices are the result of speculation, the policy of the U.S. Federal Reserve, conspiracy by the oil companies and so on. The single fact the Saudis can be certain of is that the price of oil is high, they don’t know how long it will remain high, and they don’t want anything interfering with their amassing vast financial reserves that might have to sustain them in lean times should they come.
In short, the Saudis are trying to reduce the threat of war in the region. War is at this moment the single greatest threat to their interests. In particular, they are afraid of any war that would close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large portion of the oil they sell flows. The only real threat to the strait is a war between the United States and Iran in which the Iranians countered an American attack or blockade by mining the strait. It is assumed that the United States could readily deal with any Iranian countermove, but the Saudis have watched the Americans in Iraq and they are not impressed. From the Saudi point of view, not having a war is the far better option.
At the same time, if the Iranians decide to press the issue, the Saudis would be in no position to defend themselves. It is assumed that the United States would protect the Saudi oil fields out of self-interest. But any American government — and here they are looking past the Bush administration — might find it politically difficult to come to the aid of a country perceived as radically Islamist. Should another contingency come to pass, and the Iranians — either through insurgency or attack — do the unexpected, it is in the Saudi interest to create an image that is more compatible with U.S. tastes. And of course nothing does that better than interfaith dialogue. At this point, the Saudis are only at the point of discussing interfaith dialogue, but this still sets the stage.
It also creates a forum in which to drive home to the Iranians, via Rafsanjani, the unease the Saudis feel about Iranian intentions, using Hezbollah as an example. In permitting public attacks on the Shia, the Saudis do two things. First, they placate a domestic conservative constituency by retargeting them against Shiites. Second, they are boosting the theological framework to allow them to support groups who oppose the Shia. In particular that means supporting groups in Lebanon who oppose Hezbollah and Sunni groups in Iraq seeking more power in the Shiite dominated government. In doing this, Riyadh signals the Iranians that the Saudis are in a position to challenge their fundamental interests in the region — while Iran is not going to be starting Shiite uprisings in Arabia while the price of oil is high and the Shia can be made content.
Pacifying the Region
The Saudis are engaged in a massive maneuver to try to pacify the region, if not forever, then for at least as long as oil prices are high. The Saudis are quietly encouraging the Syrian-Israeli peace talks along with the Turks, and one of the reasons for Syrian participation is undoubtedly assurances of Saudi investments in Syria and Lebanon from which Damascus can benefit. The Saudis also are encouraging Israeli-Palestinian talks, and there is, we suspect, Saudi pressure on Hamas to be more cooperative in those talks. The Saudis have no interest in an Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-Hezbollah conflict right now that might destabilize the region.
Finally, the Saudis have had enough of the war in Iraq. They do not want increased Iranian power in Iraq. They do not want to see the Sunnis marginalized. They do not want to see al Qaeda dominating the Iraqi Sunnis. They have influence with the Iraqi Sunnis, and money buys even more. Ever since 2003, with the exception of the Kurdish region, the development of Iraqi oil has been stalled. Iraqis of all factions are aware of how much money they’ve lost because of their civil war. This is a lever that the Saudis can use in encouraging some sort of peace in Iraq.
It is not that Saudi Arabia has become pacifist by any means. Nor are they expecting (or, frankly, interested in) lasting peace. They are interested in assuring sufficient stability over the coming months and years so they can concentrate on making money from oil. To do this they need to carry out a complex maneuver. They need to refocus their own religious conservatives against the Shia. They need to hem in Iran, the main Shiite power. They need to reposition themselves politically in the United States, the country that ultimately guarantees Saudi national security. And they need to at least lower the temperature in Middle Eastern conflicts or, better still, forge peace treaties.
The Saudis don’t care if these treaties are permanent, but neither would they object if they were. Like any state, Saudi Arabia has interests to pursue; these interests change over time, but right now is the time for stability. Later is later. It is therefore no surprise that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak visited Riyadh for talks this weekend. The discussions weren’t theological in nature. Mubarak shares with the Saudis an interest in an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Mubarak fears the spread of Hamas’ ideas back into Egypt and he wants the radical Palestinian group kept in its Gaza box. A large cache of weapons uncovered in the Sinai last week, including surface to air missiles, is as much a threat to Egypt as to Israel. Mubarak has been in no position to conclude such an agreement, even though he has tried to broker it. The Saudis have the financial muscle to make it happen. Clearly the Egyptians and Saudis have much to discuss.
We are not at the dawn of a new age in the Middle East. We are in a period where one country has become politically powerful because of mushrooming wealth, and wants to use that power to make more wealth. A lasting peace is not likely in the Middle East. But increased stability is possible, and while interfaith dialogue does not strike us as a vehicle to this end, hundreds of millions in oil revenue does. Peace has been made on weaker foundations.
Tell Stratfor What You Think
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to http://www.stratfor.com/
===============================================================================================

Aussies Leave, Lithuanians Stay
Posted By Blackfive
I don't think that anyone is surprised that, after the change in leadership in the Australian government, our dear friends the Aussies would be leaving Iraq.

Australian Soldiers roll up the Australian flag for the last time in Iraq during the transfer of authority ceremony June 1. The Australian Army relinquished command of their area of operations to the 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. Location: COB Adder, IQ. Photographer: Spc. Jamie Avila, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division Public Affairs.
The story of the Lithuanians who volunteered to extend in Iraq is after the Jump:

Lithuanian 1st Lt. Gediminas Alisauskas, of Lithuanian Contingent 10 stands guard as U.S. Soldiers and members of PRT Wasit tour a vo-tech facility in al-Kut, Iraq, May 12. Photo courtesy of MND-C.

Lithuanian Sgt. 1st Class Donatas Krivickas, of LITCON 10, maintains security in a market in the town of Dujayli as U.S.civil affairs Soldiers conduct an assessment May 20. (U.S. Army photo/Sgt. Daniel T. West)
Lithuanians Choose to Stay the CourseBy Sgt. Daniel T. West214th Fires Brigade, Public Affairs Office FORWARD OPERATING BASE DELTA, Iraq – With only a week remaining in their six-month tour in Iraq, soldiers from Lithuanian Contingent 10, Iron Wolf Brigade, faced a difficult choice. Two options remained following the news that the Lithuanian government had voted to extend the unit’s tour for two more months: the soldiers could volunteer for the extension or continue their redeployment. “Since they were already packed and I knew how difficult it would be, I chose to ask for volunteers to stay,” said Lt. Gen. Valdas Tutkus, Lithuanian Chief of Defense. Twenty-nine of the 40 soldiers in the platoon chose to continue the mission. “Without them, we would be stuck,” said Capt. Caroline Pogge, of Company B, 411th Civil Affairs Battalion. “They are the primary personnel security detachment for civil affairs and Provincial Reconstruction Team Wasit. Without them, we are immobile.” Selecting to continue their deployment showed a lot about their character, according to Pogge. “To a lot of people, six weeks (the extension was later changed to eight weeks) isn’t much,” said Pogge, a native of Danbury, Conn. “But over here, it’s a long time.” Word that the Lithuanians had selected to stay was a welcome surprise, according to Col. Peter Baker, commander of the 214th Fires Brigade. “We are so dependent on them for movement; we didn’t know how we would move the teams that are so vital to the reconstruction effort,” Baker said. The Soldiers appreciated the fact that the choice was left to them. “It is important to serve our country, but in some moments it is more important to take care of home and family,” said 1st Lt Gediminas Alisauskas, a platoon commander. “I’m glad to have the chance to choose. All of us had plans for when we got back – most changed them, some couldn’t.” Being so close to returning home made the choice difficult. “I had one week left and it felt like I was already home,” Cpl. Rimvydas Stasaitis said. “I had plans, but changed them when I decided to stay. It’s my duty and responsibility. The mission is not finished when our time is finished. If we wanted to finish it, we had to stay.” For some, the decision to stay was because of the team, a reluctance to leave while comrades stayed. The platoon bonded over the time here, and for some, the decision was whether to leave one family for another. “We came as one platoon and have friends here,” said Capt. Karolis Morkunas, the platoon’s senior national representative. “We want to stay with our friends.” Tutkus emphasized Lithuania’s continued commitment to supporting the U.S. We came in with the U.S. during the war and will stay in support until the end,” he said. “It’s important to be a credible member of NATO and the Coalition. In order to demonstrate our credibility as a country, we have to share the risk.” As the soldiers of the platoon performed their duties over the past six months, they impacted on all who interacted with them, from their Chief of Defense to the U.S. Soldiers who worked with them from day to day. “I’m proud of the soldiers here,” Tutkus said. “From the first part, every time I visit soldiers and their commanders, I hear only the best things. There is a light in their eyes. They are motivated, professional, well-trained and competent.” The civil affairs team members they escorted echoed the sentiments. “They are phenomenal, professional soldiers,” Pogge said. “They know their job and do it extremely well. Their competence and confidence is obvious as we travel with them.” The Soldiers who stayed held no grudges against those who chose to leave. “Some soldiers had losses, maybe their wife was sick and they had small children, so they had to go,” Morkunas said. “They didn’t want to go… Even those who stayed had compelling reasons to go. The section leader (Master Sgt. Andrius Samusevas) has a two-month-old daughter that he has never seen, I have a two-and-a-half month-old daughter that I’ve never seen, but we chose to stay, to see it through.” The soldiers were optimistic about their final two months, but did not plan to make things permanent. “It’s ok to stay for two months, but not one day more,” Stasaitis said. “I am getting married in two months and one day, and I can’t reschedule that.”
June 05, 2008 • Permalink Categories and Tags: Military • Technorati Links Technorati Tags:
Subscribe to this feed • Email this • Add to del.icio.us • Digg This! • Share on Facebook • Stumble It! • Save to del.icio.us • Technorati Links

Comments

Responsibility. Integrity. Self-respect. Interesting terms, and all apply to the Lithuanian troops. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Codekeyguy June 05, 2008 at 06:08 PM
The same could be said for the Diggers, too ... problem is, those terms don't extend all the way up to their PM.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt June 05, 2008 at 08:04 PM
Like P.J. O'Rourke said, people who've lived under real totalitarianism know what's at stake here.
Australia's Pink PM Kevin Rudd, with his made-up childhood and half-thought notions, never will. His "base" is yelling at him for being mean to a child pornographer so he had to show how 'progressive' he could be...
Posted by: richard mcenroe June 05, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Here's to the Diggers for all they did while they were there. Thanks for everything, gentlemen.
Posted by: Grim June 05, 2008 at 09:10 PM
The news article I read (Might have been from Australia) said the Aussies were handing ove to the Iraqis
Posted by: Davod June 06, 2008 at 05:59 AM
I sure won't miss seeing the Diggers as patients here, but I certainly will miss meeting the fine men and women of the Australian critical care medevac teams.
Thanks to both the Aussies and the Lithuanians. We're grateful for your friendship, and it's been an honor to stand with you.
Posted by: MaryAnn June 06, 2008 at 07:51 AM
To the Diggers; we'll hoist one for you guys and you will be missed.
To the Lithuanians; you guys rock in my book:-)
Posted by: Steve O. June 06, 2008 at 09:30 AM
Good on ya Lithuania. The Aussies are good friends. I just read an article at Military.com with their Defense Chief talking about Afghanistan and the greater commitment needed. Hopefully the Aussies will be adding to their 1,000+ in AF and NATO Europe will follow their lead.
Posted by: ST333 June 06, 2008 at 09:39 AM

http://www.blackfive.net/main/




========================================================

Russia blames U.S. for global financial crisis

Sat Jun 7, 2008 1:42pm EDT
By Michael Stott
ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev blamed "aggressive" United States policies on Saturday for the global financial crisis and said Moscow's growing economic muscle could be part of the solution.
"Failure by the biggest financial firms in the world to adequately take risk into account, coupled with the aggressive financial policies of the biggest economy in the world, have led not only to corporate losses," Medvedev told Russia's main annual event for international investors in St Petersburg.
"Most people on the planet have become poorer."
The Kremlin leader said investment by cash-rich Russian companies abroad, promotion of Moscow as a major financial centre and use of the ruble as a reserve currency were part of the answer.
These could help solve problems created by what he said was a gap between the United States' leading global economic role and "its true capabilities".
The Kremlin leader said economic nationalism had played a big part in triggering the current crisis, which he compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
"No matter how big the American market and no matter how strong the American financial system, they are incapable of substituting for global commodity and financial markets," Medvedev told the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.
The Kremlin leader also attacked big bonuses paid out in the financial world, saying regulators needed to ensure that incentives promoted "rational behavior based on a balanced evaluation of risks and rewards".
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, who spoke shortly after Medvedev, appeared to reject the criticism.
He said the United States had never based its policies on "economic egoism" and believed in free trade.
"Globalization is in the national interest," he added.
Medvedev said Russia, now in the 10th year of an economic boom fuelled by soaring prices for its oil and gas exports, was in an ideal position to help solve the world financial crisis since it did not share the problems of other leading economies.
"Russia is now a global player and understands its role in
supporting the global community," the president added.
"I propose holding a representative international conference involving the heads of the biggest financial companies and leading financial analysts...as early as this year," the Kremlin chief said. "Such a platform could become a permanent one".
The Kremlin has encouraged Russian companies, which are flush with cash from high commodity and oil prices, to invest more actively abroad but this has caused alarm in Western nations, which are traditionally suspicious of Moscow's intentions.
Medvedev said other countries had nothing to fear from Russian investment in their companies since it was "neither speculative nor aggressive" but purely based on pragmatism.
Sworn in last month as president, the Russian leader said world institutions had been unable so far to cope with the challenges from volatility on world markets, including soaring commodity and food prices.
With its past as a leading global wheat producer, Russia was ready for "constructive joint action" to overcome the food problem, he said.
Moscow could also help with another problem -- a lack of liquid investable assets because of disappointment with the U.S. dollar. Russia would soon adopt a plan to become a global financial centre and make the ruble a regional reserve currency, Medvedev said.
The Russian leader said that recent Kremlin moves to liberalize the domestic gas market and reduce taxes on the oil sector would help stabilize global energy markets. Russia is the world's biggest gas producer and its second-biggest oil exporter.
(Additional reporting by Oleg Shchedrov and Dmitry Zhdannikov; Editing by Ibon Villelabeitia)
Reuters
============================================================================
Hopes for Court Reform Stir in RussiaJudge's Testimony Describing Political Pressure Seen as Hint of Medvedev's Intent

By Peter FinnWashington Post Foreign ServiceMonday, June 9, 2008; A11
MOSCOW -- Yelena Valyavina, a senior judge at the Federal Arbitration Court, electrified a Moscow courtroom last month when she stated openly what had long been unspoken, at least by influential insiders: The Kremlin has pressured and threatened the Russian judiciary to secure favorable rulings.
Full story via active link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801827_pf.html

=============================================================


TNK-BP has been hit by several probes
BP's Russian oil row deadlocked as CEO fights back

1 day ago
SAINT PETERSBURG (AFP) — A dispute over Russian-British oil major TNK-BP appeared deadlocked on Sunday, with the Kremlin saying it would stay out of the row seen by investors as a test of Russia's business climate.
Speaking at an economic forum in Saint Petersburg, TNK-BP's embattled chief executive defended the company and his leadership against mounting criticism from officials as well as Russian investors in the multi-billion-dollar firm.
Full story via active link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSW0VXe8mHi0RvpwHmX2jRvSkm3A

============================================================

Kyiv committed to NATO bid

by Dariya Orlova, Kyiv Post Staff WriterJun 05 2008, 01:38

© KP Media, photo by Oleksiy Boyko
Volodymyr Ohryzko (left), Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Boris Wrzesnewskyj, a Canadian MP, discuss the prospects for Ukraine’s accession to NATO’s Membership Action Plan at the second international forum
Ukraine will continue along its path towards NATO accession, government officials reiterated during the opening of the second international forum, “Ukraine’s Euro­Atlantic Future,” in Kyiv on June 2, just a month before German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s planned state visit to Ukraine.
“President Viktor Yushchenko will try to convince Angela Merkel to soften her standpoint and facilitate Ukraine’s accession to the MAP (Membership Action Plan),” said Oleksandr Chalyi, deputy head of the President’s Secretariat, according to UNIAN on June 3. Germany’s Chancellor is expected to visit the capital on July 21 this year.
The 26 member alliance is split on letting Ukraine join. Canada and the US have said they support Ukraine’s membership, but Germany, with support from France, vetoed Ukraine’s MAP bid at the Bucharest Summit last April.
Instead, NATO leaders confirmed in a joint communique that “Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO,” a move meant to ease the sting of the MAP rejection.
Ukraine’s and Georgia’s requests will be reviewed at the NATO foreign ministers meeting in December this year. Ukraine has to prove it has met reform targets in the different areas, including internal political issues, foreign and security policy, defense and security sector reform, public information, economic and legal reform and information security. All reforms were raised in the Sixth Ukraine­NATO Target Plan that President Yushchenko signed in Bucharest.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj, a member of Canadian Parliament and a strong supporter of Ukraine’s NATO bid, said in his opening speech that he did not understand allies who question Ukraine’s NATO ascension due to energy worries or threats.
“These are the same countries which not that many decades ago faced exponentially greater threats; notwithstanding which Canada and the Alliance embraced them,” Wrzesnewskyj said. “Due to the Alliance’s embrace, these countries’ populations are now among the most free and prosperous on the planet.”
Others use Ukraine’s politics as an excuse not to embrace the country, Wrzesnewskyj added, saying these “naysayers” need to be shown that “this is a healthy sign of a nascent democratic state.”
“How refreshing the messiness of Ukraine’s political processes is, compared to the rule by decree of neighboring Mr. Lukashenko, or a parliament in which over 70 percent of the deputies are members of a former president’s party,” he said.
But, political instability and people’s “persistent negativity towards NATO” are the top problems for Ukraine in terms of Euro­Atlantic integration, German Ambassador to Ukraine Reinhard Schaefers told the Post in an exclusive interview last April.
Domestic Ukrainian political turmoil is not the only issue hampering Ukraine’s NATO bid. Just days before the Bucharest Summit, former Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that “the emergence of a powerful military bloc at our borders will be seen as a direct threat to Russia’s security.”
In a response to Russian claims, the Ukrainian government repeated that Ukraine’s accession to MAP does not pose any threat to Russia.
“We want to extrapolate a zone of security and stability for our territory and then pass it to our neighbors. We are sure Russia is also interested in having a zone of stability on its borders,” said Volodymyr Ohryzko, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking to participants at the forum.
“It is about time to stop speculations on a ‘great agreement,’ the Ukraine­Russia relationship and quite doubtful historical parallels,” he said.
However, “even if we had 100 percent of public opinion supporting NATO, if there was an ideal cooperation between the branches of power, this would not be sufficient, because there is no political decision,” said Oleh Rybachuk, ex­head of the President’s Secretariat and a close ally of President Yushchenko.
“Both the EU and NATO are unsure about their future. That is why they are cautious when speaking about membership criteria,” Rybachuk said. “That is why they say ‘yes, but not now.’ So, they try to gain time.”
European politicians are waiting for elections in the US, which will likely mean a new set of policies towards Russia, Rybachuk added.
Perceptions of such an important player as Russia have to be considered, said German Ambassador Schaefers, “because we need Russia as a partner and active player in quite a range of fields of a European dimension: a new conventional arms reduction treaty, a new Conventional Forces in Europe Agreement.”
“We want them to play a stabilizing role with the unsettled question of Kosovo and constructive role in missile defense in support of our American friends,” the Ambassador noted.
The German side, however, emphasizes that Ukrainian political elites have to demonstrate political stability and reliability, as well as true commitment to the Euro­Atlantic integration process.
It is about time to for Ukraine and Germany to have a concrete political dialogue, said Nico Lange, a director of the Kyiv office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a German non­governmental organization that conducts projects focused on fostering democracy and strengthening civil society in Ukraine.
“The dialogue, it is my impression, has been very abstract,” he said. “You (Ukraine) should talk to us (Germany). You should not rely on someone else to convince us,” he added.
Agreement between political elites on the NATO issue is what will eventually lead to public support of Ukraine’s integration into the Alliance, noted Rybachuk.
“When branches of power start working, this is the best background for Chancellor Merkel’s or President Sarkozy’s visits to Ukraine,” Rybachuk said.
===================================================


Kremlin's Mafia-Style Foreign Policy: Show Me the Cash

June 9, 2008; Page A16
Without addressing Sen. Charles Schumer's central premise that sanctions would be effective against oil-rich Iran ("Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran," op-ed, June 3), I would like to address what appears to be a dangerously myopic view of Russia and Russian foreign policy.
First, the senator's provocative decision to address the matter to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instead of President Dmitry Medvedev requires extensive explanation where none was provided. The constitution of Russia makes very clear that the president is responsible for foreign policy. The prime minister serves at his discretion. It is well understood that Mr. Putin remains in the seat of power in Russia and that Mr. Medvedev was simply appointed to win a fraudulent election in March. But for an American senator to publicly take this state of affairs for granted is remarkable. Mr. Medvedev was not mentioned once in Sen. Schumer's editorial and I cannot believe this was accidental or the result of ignorance. Therefore, is Sen. Schumer implicitly acknowledging that Mr. Medvedev's election was a sham and that Russia is a dictatorship? Does this indicate a disagreement with the current U.S. policy of pretending Russia is a democracy? Would this be the senator's policy recommendation to his Senate colleague Barack Obama? Is it too much to ask that such an important, and commendable, stance be taken in less subtle fashion?
Second, Mr. Putin and his gang could not care less about nationalism (old or new), Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe, or NATO's antimissile system. They are interested only in money and how to maintain the flow into their bank accounts. Every decision they have made has this truth at its core. Mr. Putin's saber-rattling is theater designed to build up equity with the West that can later be traded away for guarantees that allow the looting of Russia to continue unabated -- for example, not responding to the crackdown on Russia's pro-democracy opposition and allowing Russia to stay in the G-8 and thereby avoid the fiscal scrutiny that would accompany less-favored status.
The Kremlin elite will join in sanctions against Iran when it is literally profitable for them to do so and not before. Sen. Schumer is speaking their language when he suggests bribing Russia into joining the boycott of Iran -- to the tune of $3 billion a year. This is the sort of mafia-style proposition they understand. I am sure they will be gratified to see a U.S. senator coming around to their way of doing business: Speak only to the big boss and offer cold, hard cash.
Garry Kasparov Chairman United Civil Front Moscow

=================================================================
From the Estonian American National Council:
Please distribute and contact Senator Schumer!

On June 3, 2008, Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) published an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled “Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran.” Sen. Schumer proposes that the United States abandon plans for NATO's anti-missile system in Central Europe as it “mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.” He also proposes to recognize Russia’s “traditional role” in the Caspian region, and “make Russia whole if it joins in our Iranian boycott.”

Sen. Schumer suggests these actions to coerce Russia to join in a boycott to impose stronger economic sanctions against Iran, in order to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The full article can be viewed at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121245110938939473.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries, and is also below.
l
For your convenience, below is a sample letter to Senator Schumer. Please revise as you wish or write your own version, but the main thing is to express your opposition to „Russian hegemony over Easter Europe.” You can send your correspondence via e-mail to http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm or fax: 202-228-3027 (Washington, D.C. office). If you live in New York State, it is especially important for you to voice your opinion!
________________

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Schumer:

As an American (if applicable) and your constituent ( if applicable), I was deeply distressed by your June 3, 2008, opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled “Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran.” The country of Estonia, and my relatives and compatriots, suffered greatly under “Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.” I was utterly shocked by your suggestion that the nation of my ancestors, as well as all of the other Central and East European countries, who only recently were able to regain their freedom from Soviet occupation, be used as trade commodities in order to appease or entice Russia.
For decades Estonians were mercilessly persecuted by Russia, whose “greatness” you suggest Mr. Putin to restore. Yet, in your opinion piece, you find it possible to suggest that modern-day Russia be allowed to dominate the independent nations of Central and East Europe in order for the U.S. to achieve its goals.
Your recommendations and suggestions are incongruent with America’s long-maintained stand of never recognizing the incorporation of Estonia, nor of the other two Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania, by the Soviet Union. The United States has been extremely supportive of the countries in the former Soviet bloc as they have striven to eliminate Russian hegemony in Central and East Europe and establish themselves as independent, vibrant, and democratic nations. Proposals such as yours suggest that the United States, the strongest democratic state in the world, play into Russia’s longing for its past “greatness and glory,” achieved by the domination of others, and allow it to again control other nations.

While I agree that an Iran with nuclear capability is a threat, this is not the way to deal with it! I respectfully call upon you to publicly retract your statements in the Wall Street Journal op-ed, and to indicate your support for the continued independence of all Central and East European countries.

Sincerely,

__________________


Article in question by U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, New York, published in the Wall Street Journal june 3, 2008......
Tony Mazeika


Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran
By CHARLES SCHUMER

June 3, 2008; Page A19Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was installing an additional 6,000 centrifuges at Iran's main nuclear enrichment complex. The Bush administration in turn needs to use every diplomatic tool in its arsenal to halt Tehran's development of nuclear weaponsWhile the military option can never be taken off the table, most experts admit it would be unlikely to succeed. Because Iran has dispersed its nuclear facilities and buried some deep underground, an air strike will at best slow down, without preventing, its eventual creation of nuclear weapons. A military occupation might do so, but there are less costly solutions available.Those solutions begin with understanding the fundamental instability of Iran's theocratic dictatorship. Iran is not a homogenous country. It is home to several major and traditionally competitive ethnic groups – Persians, Azeris, Kurds and Arabs. The predominant Iranian culture is mild and secular, not prone to religious fanaticism. Iranians have a great affinity for Western goods and ideas. Satellite TV is illegal in Iran, but there are an estimated five million satellite dishes in Iranian households. The most popular television station is not Al Jazeera nor even CNN, but MTVMost importantly, Iran is considerably younger, more educated and more middle class than its neighbors. More than two-thirds of the population is under 30, and the literacy rate is 79%. Women make up half of all incoming university students. Iran's average income far exceeds its neighbors. The growing middle class treasures economic success above political or religious rights, and they measure the success of the current regime on an economic scale.This dynamic creates an opportunity. Economic sanctions could cause the Iranian government to negotiate seriously with us, and might, over time, topple the theocracy. In fact, the mildest of economic sanctions – a boycott of Iranian banks by U.S and European central banks – has already produced an economic slowdown, and unrest among Iranians.Stronger economic sanctions could produce more effective results. To work, these sanctions would require the cooperation of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The U.S. and Britain have always backed tougher action; Germany and France are also now on board. The Chinese may go along if everyone else will. That leaves Russia and its prime minister, Vladimir Putin. Thus far, it is Russia that has blocked more effective economic sanctions.There are three reasons. First, Russia has a longstanding, close relationship with Iran and regards itself as Iran's protector. Second, the Russian economy benefits from its relationship with Iran by several billion dollars a year. Third and most important is leverage. Mr. Putin is an old-fashioned nationalist who seeks to regain the power and greatness Russia had before the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia's relationship with Iran is a key point of leverage over the West that he will not relinquish easilyTo bring Putin's Russia on board we must make it an offer it cannot refuse. The offer has three parts.First, we must treat Russia as an equal partner when it comes to policy in the Caspian Sea region, recognizing Russia's traditional role in the region. Second, we must offer to make Russia whole if it joins in our Iranian boycott and forgoes trade revenues with Iran. That will cost the U.S. roughly $2 billion to $3 billion a year, about what we spend in Iraq each week. Third, we should tell Mr. Putin we will cease building the ineffective antinuclear missile defense sites in Eastern Europe in return for him joining the boycott.Two years ago, under NATO auspices, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania agreed to build an antimissile defense site to thwart the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran. The threat is hypothetical and remote, and the Bush administration's emphasis on pursuing the antimissile system, without Russia's cooperation, still baffles many national security experts.It also drives Mr. Putin to apoplexy. The antimissile system strengthens the relationship between Eastern Europe and NATO, with real troops and equipment on the ground. It mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.Dismantling the antimissile site, economic incentives and creation of a diplomatic partnership in the region – in exchange for joining an economic boycott of Iran – is an offer Mr. Putin would find hard to refuse. It is our best hope to avoid a nuclear Iran, because a successful economic boycott would certainly force the Iranian regime to heed Western demands more than anything attempted so far.Mr. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York.

******************************

From:

Karl Altau

Managing DirectorJoint Baltic American National Committee, Inc.

400 Hurley AvenueRockville, MD 20850tel. 301-340-1954 fax 301-309-1406 jbanc@jbanc.org http://jbanc.org/

Representing:Estonian American National Council, Inc.American Latvian Association, Inc.Lithuanian American Council, Inc.
****************************************************************

Obama's Schumer Problem
Editorial of The New York SunJune 4, 2008
Europeans starting to focus on the post-primary debate in America — and on what an Obama administration might mean — will want to pay particular attention to the op-ed dispatch in the Wall Street Journal yesterday from Senator Schumer. The Democrat of New York proposes that America deal with the Iranian nuclear crisis by turning Eastern Europe back over to Russia. If that sounds like an exaggeration, we commend a reading of the article in full at WSJ.com.

Sure enough, the senator claims that Prime Minister Putin "is an old-fashioned nationalist who seeks to regain the power and greatness Russia had before the fall of the Soviet Union." What greatness was that exactly, senator? The part where the political prisoners were sent to the Gulag? Or where the East Germans trying to escape over the Berlin Wall to freedom were shot and killed? Or where the Jews weren't allowed either to worship or leave?
Mr. Schumer proposes to please Mr. Putin by abandoning NATO's plans to provide Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania with a missile defense. That defense, quoth Mr. Schumer, "mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe." What is Mr. Schumer saying here — that he sides with Mr. Putin's plan to gain hegemony over Eastern Europe? What message would it send to our NATO allies in Warsaw, Prague, and Bucharest to bow to Mr. Putin's dream of putting Europe back under the Russian boot?
Mr. Schumer claims that the missile defense sites are "to thwart the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran," a threat that Mr. Schumer describes as "hypothetical and remote." Well, if the governments in Poland, and Czech Republic, and Romania thought the threat was so remote, they would not have invited the missile defense sites to be there.
Our enemies have already launched large-scale attacks against European targets — 191 killed in the Madrid train bombing of 2004, 52 dead in the London bus and subway bombing of 2005, eight killed on Monday at the bombing of the Danish embassy at Islamabad. To the relatives and friends of those victims the threat seems neither hypothetical nor remote. Nor to the Israelis who were attacked by Iraqi scud missiles in the Gulf War or by Hezbollah terrorists with Zelzal and Fajr missiles during the 2006 Lebanon War.
If there's any consolation to our allies in Eastern Europe, it is that Mr. Schumer doesn't think it is only they who should go unprotected from enemy missiles. He wants America to go without missile defense, too. Back in 2000, he sent a letter begging President Clinton to "resist pressure to deploy a national missile defense system at this time." In 2004, he repeatedly tried to hold back half a billion dollars in spending on missile defense. The idea of defending against enemy missiles just gives the Democrat the fantods.
The Wall Street Journal led the fight to deploy a missile defense. So one has to figure its hope, in airing Mr. Schumer's views, is to alert the our allies in such liberated nations as once stood behind an iron curtain that the third-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the Senate is, in order to gain cooperation from the mullahs in Iran, prepared to feed Mr. Putin's fantasies of taking back Eastern Europe. It's a circumstance in which Mr. McCain may start to look more and more attractive, at home and abroad.
Schumer Is Criticized By Prague, Poles, Romanians
Op-Ed Is Called 'Hard to Believe'
By ROSS GOLDBERG, Special to the SunJune 6, 2008
Senator Schumer is coming under sharp criticism from the government of the Czech Republic and from Polish-American and Romanian-American leaders in America after writing an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that America should accommodate what he called Prime Minister Putin's "dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe."
Diplomats and community leaders who read the Journal article in response to inquiries by The New York Sun said they were taken aback by the suggestion by the New York Democrat that America should try to gain Russia's backing for tougher sanctions on Iran by abandoning NATO plans to build missile defense sites in Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic.
RELATED: Obama's Schumer Problem.
The Czech ambassador to the United Nations, Martin Palous, objected to the idea that his country should be "offered to Russia." "We don't think that there should be a kind of bargaining chip with Russians, that Russians should be given certain concessions to get some advantages," Mr. Palous said. "We certainly would like to be considered a partner, not an object to be negotiated about."
The president of the Polish American Congress division that includes New York City, Frank Milewski, said Mr. Schumer "sounds like Churchill and Roosevelt, who at the Yalta conference in 1945 were willing to consign Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere of influence and brought about the eventual Cold War."
"It's hard to believe that someone would be making that kind of a statement," Mr. Milewski said. Mr. Schumer's office did not respond to requests for comment.
This isn't the first time that Mr. Schumer has peeved Americans of East European origin. A source recalled a speech Mr. Schumer gave at the Polish consulate about five years ago, in which he mistakenly said that Poland was not yet a member of NATO. In fact, it had already joined the alliance in 1999.
The executive director of the Romanian-American Network and editor in chief of the Chicago-based Romanian Tribune, Steven Bonica, grew up behind the Iron Curtain in Romania and escaped to America as a political refugee in 1984. He recalled that the population felt betrayed after World War II when America "abandoned" it to the Eastern Bloc. Mr. Bonica said it was special moment when Romania hosted a NATO summit in April, nearly 20 years after the country was freed from Soviet influence.
"Now, to go back?" he asked in response to Mr. Schumer. "Only someone who does not respect democracy or people's will would suggest that Romania and countries of eastern Europe should be left alone or pushed towards Russia."
A few community leaders took particular issue with the passage in the senator's article in which he wrote that Mr. Putin "seeks to regain the power and greatness Russia had before the fall of the Soviet Union."
"What does Schumer mean? That if we have communist Russia back, then it's ok?" asked the editor in chief of the Polish American Journal, Mark Kohan. "Schumer thinks they'll have power and leave us alone. That's ludicrous." The editor of the Polish Daily News in Manhattan, Czeslaw Karkowski, said that the antimissile site would ensure that America has a continuing interest in protecting Poland. And the president of the American Friends of the Czech Republic, Peter Rafaeli, said he believes that the shield may one day avert an actual missile attack.
"If there's an ounce of possibility that it may protect these countries from going through another devastation, then I think they deserve it," Mr. Rafaeli said. He emphasized that he was not speaking for his organization, which is apolitical. The head of the Long Island Chapter of the Polish American Congress, Richard Brzozowski, said he agreed with Mr. Schumer that the shield is more trouble than it's worth.
"The Polish people should not be subjected to having those sites there because Russia is strongly against it and Russia and Poland have never been on great terms," Mr. Brzozowski said.
Several of those interviewed questioned why Mr. Schumer felt the need to write the proposal in the first place, especially one on such a sensitive issue.
"I don't think there's another senator who has more to say on any given day than Schumer," said the president of the Congress of Romanian Americans, Armand Scala. "He's more political than he needs to be out there in the media."
***************************************************************************

Russian Court Laughs in Katyn Victims' Face

Wacław Radziwinowicz, Moscow 2008-05-28, ostatnia aktualizacja 2008-05-28 08:49:53.0 Only those killed in Katyn could personally apply to be recognised as victims of political reprisals and rehabilitated. Their descendants don't have that right, a court in Moscow said yesterday.



Wiosną 1940 r. NKWD zamordowało 25 tys. polskich oficerów, policjantów, strażników granicznych, urzędników i fabrykantów. Na zdjęciu: portrety ofiar w Muzeum Katyńskim w Warszawie


Descendants of ten Polish officers murdered by the NKVD in Katyn in the spring of 1940 are demanding from Russia's Chief Military Prosecutor's Office that they are recognised as victims of political reprisals and officially rehabilitated.The prosecutor's office replies it cannot do that, because there is no conclusive proof that the 25,000 Polish army and police officers, border guards, officials, and business owners were murdered on the basis of an unfair ruling issued by a Soviet court.Indeed, there's no such proof, and there won't ever be. The executions were carried out on the basis not of a court sentence, but a decision of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) Central Committee's Politburo dated 5 March 1940, which stated explicitly they were to be shot 'without interrogation, without charges, without an investigation, and without an indictment'.The Katyn victims' relatives appealed against the prosecutor office's decision through their Moscow lawyers to the district court in Moscow Khamovniki. The court issued a ruling on 16 May, and the official writ has just reached Poland.Judge Igor Tulenev answered the Katyn victims' relatives in a style similar to that used earlier by the military prosecutor's office: 'The literal interpretation of the meaning of the Article 8.1 of the Russian Federation's Act on the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Reprisals is such that only the citizens whose rights have been directly violated are entitled to appeal against the [Military Prosecutor's Office's] decision'. 'The judge told us clearly: only the victims would be able to appeal against the prosecutor's absurd decision. Their children don't have the right to demand justice', said Anna Stawicka, counsel to the families of the Katyn victims in Russia.'It is a cynical and stupid legal trick. The Article 8.1. cited by Judge Tulenev applies only to those relatives of the victims of communist crimes who suffered in the past because of the reprisals against their family members and are now demanding compensation, not to people asking for justice for murder victims', said Alexander Guryanov at the Memorial historical and civil rights society. It has long urged Russia to account for its communist crimes.'The decision of the Khamovniki court is yet another example of how far in absurdity the Russian judiciary is prepared to go. Four years ago, the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office closed its Katyn investigation due to the "perpetrators' death", but it withheld their names, protecting the executioners', said Andrzej Skąpski, president of the Federation of Katyn Families and someone whose father died in Katyn. 'Me and the Federation's other members want one thing only - to end this dreadful game with the Russian courts as soon as possible. During the Mikhail Gorbachev era, Russia admitted that Katyn was a Stalinist crime. President Boris Yeltsin apologised for it, and Poland received some of the Russian archival documents concerning the crime. But Katyn remains a sensitive subject in Russia. Nezavisimaya Gazeta warned recently that the rehabilitation of the Katyn victims would cost Russia $22 billion in compensations for their descendants. And that this is precisely what they want.''Gazeta Wyborcza'' comment on court decision - here (by Wacław Radziwinowicz)

==============================================================


"Patriotism" leads comeback of Russian filmmaking

Tue Jun 3, 2008 9:38am EDT
By Amie Ferris-Rotman and Thomas Peter
SUZDAL, Russia (Reuters) - A gang of black-clad horsemen gallop past a line of gallows, splattering tufts of snow against frozen corpses.
They are the 'oprichniki', loyal henchmen of Russia's sixteenth century tsar, Ivan the Terrible. Severed dogs' heads dangle from their saddles, a warning to the motherland's internal enemies.
The set belongs to a new film, "Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Philip," due out next year, which explores the relationship between the tyrant Ivan and his friend and fiercest critic, Philip.
Standing near a white-walled monastery in Suzdal, a town 200 kilometers (120 miles) northeast of Moscow whose buildings resemble the capital in medieval times, director Pavel Lungin said he had a working budget of $17 million for "Ivan," high by Russian standards.
The large budget and professional crew, including a U.S. cameraman who works with director Clint Eastwood, are a sign of a revival in Russia's film industry, which is attracting large sums from the government and private investors.
The government expects its production companies to make $900 million in profits in 2011, almost double last year's earnings. Their films are shown on the new screens popping up across the country, mostly to young audiences with more money to burn than their parents before them.
Like escalating prices on Russian paintings and domestic fashion, Russian film is regaining popularity and financial success as the economy soars for its 10th straight year, fuelled by $1 billion a day in energy exports.
"The Irony of Fate: Continuation," a sequel to Soviet-era favorite "The Irony of Fate," shocked Russia over the New Year by taking in $50 million at the box office in its opening month.
The story fast forwards the action from 1975 to the present day, tracking the interactions of the children of the protagonists of the original movie.
Meanwhile, post-apocalyptic "Inhabited Island," a sci-fi two-part film directed by Fyodor Bondarchuk with a running time of 4.5 hours, has a budget of $36.5 million, possibly the largest-budget movie ever to be made in Russia.
Producer Alexander Rodnyansky said "Inhabited Island," based on a book by Russian sci-fi duo the Strugatsky brothers, will have special effects to rival Hollywood blockbuster The Matrix.
"(We want) to try to make the viewers understand that at least some Russian producers are able to produce the high-quality product, exactly the same quality as all the great international movies," Rodnyansky said.
STATE INTERVENTION
Once the pearl of the Soviet Union's propaganda machine, the film industry was lavished with large state budgets and producers and directors were encouraged by a slew of highly-trained technicians and professional actors.
One of its early pioneers, Sergei Eisenstein, is largely accredited with creating montage, or modern editing.
But it took a sharp blow during the turbulent 1990s following the break-up of the Soviet Union, when cinemas shut down in waves across the country and studios lost funding.
At the beginning of the 2000s the state kick-started a revival by introducing market conditions.
"Our position was very simple: we will support production but cinemas and production companies will be private," said Mikhail Shvydkoi, head of the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography, which is being absorbed into the culture ministry.
Of around the 200 films made last year, half were given state support, he said, adding that Russia has around 100 million euros ($157.3 million) allocated for films this year.
Private investors play a key role, contributing the often much larger balance from their pockets.
"Private investors will call us and ask if we will support a movie, and if we do, then they will immediately invest. Governmental expertise in these fields is very important," Shvydkoi said in an interview in Moscow.
Metals tycoon and billionaire Viktor Vekselberg has funded films, he said, along with the state-controlled Bank of Moscow.
The state expects to see 20 million cinema-goers by 2010, up from 14 million -- or 10 percent of the population -- today.
"This is a result of the general stabilisation of the Russian economy. People are not afraid to spend money for entertainment," Shvydkoi said.
Screen numbers have as much to do with this rise as funding. In 2000, only 150 new screens opened across Russia. By 2010, Shvydkoi hopes that 2,500 new screens will be opening every year. The government says a quarter of cinemas today show Russian films, up from 3 percent in 2000.
NATIONAL PRIDE
But while movies about Soviet-era wars, the ongoing conflict in Chechnya and much earlier periods of Russian history are successful here, they have not done well abroad, where many are wary of Russia's expanding power.
"The highly patriotic element in many big-budget Russian films that makes them so popular at home is to some extent a turn-off for foreign viewers, who may well take a different geopolitical stance," said Julian Graffy, professor of Soviet and Russian film at University College London.
"There is a new, slightly anxious, national pride, and that is reflected in the new films of 'aggressive masculinity' that are so popular," Graffy said.
Among the dozen or so international releases of the last few years was "9th Rota," or "9th Company," an action movie directed by Bondarchuk detailing the lives of conscripts in the Afghan war of the 1980s. A blockbuster in Russia, it was poorly received when it was distributed abroad in 2005.
Conversely, Russia's internationally acclaimed art house films fare less well at home.
The new film by Oscar-winning director Nikita Milkhalkov, "12," where 12 jurors decide the fate of a young Chechen accused of murdering his adoptive father, picked up an Oscar nomination in February but failed to become a hit at home.
Averaging 12 to 22 years of age, the Russian cinema-goer is too young to appreciate "sophisticated" movies, said Michael Schlicht, head of production house 20th Century Fox in the CIS and a native East German.
"An Oscar is no guarantee for success in Russia. Rather, the opposite is the case. They like shallow stuff."
(Reporting by Amie Ferris-Rotman and Thomas Peter; Additional reporting by Nikolai Pavlov in Suzdal and Christian Lowe in Moscow; Editing by Eddie Evans)
=====================================================

Riga - Latvia's annual inflation rate reached 17.9 per cent in May, up from 17.5 per cent in April, as the Baltic nation's economy slows down, the Central Statistical Bureau said Monday.

Rising inflation, coupled with slower growth, is increasingly clouding the economic prospects for the small nation, once known as one of the 'Baltic Tigers' along with Estonia and Lithuania.
Inflation has been picking up speed in the three Baltic nations, driven by increased costs for food, housing, utilities and fuel. The economies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are beginning to slow after years of robust growth.
Estonian economy stalled at 0.1 gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the first quarter, the office of statistics said on Monday.
'It is obvious that a hard landing scenario has already materialised in the Estonian economy,' Danske Bank experts said in their comment. 'Thus, we expect a negative growth performance in 2008 and only marginal improvement in the next year.'
The fastest growing economy among the 27 EU nations in recent years, Latvia posted below-expectation GDP growth in the first quarter of 2008. The economy grew by 3.3 per cent, down from 8 per cent a quarter earlier, according to the figures released Monday.
Rising prices and tighter lending policies mean consumers are cautious how they spend their money.
Slowing domestic demand, rapid wage growth and a cooling real- estate market are likely to eliminate the 1-per-cent deficit in the Latvian budget and force the government to lower its 2008 economic growth forecast.
Growth is expected to slow in most Eastern European countries from the Baltics to Bulgaria under the impact of tighter credit, central bank moves to fight surging inflation and the ripple effect of a weaker global economy.
========================================================

Polish military delegation in Lithuania


09/06/2008 16:33 (06:38 minutes ago)
The FINANCIAL -- A delegation of the Polish Defence Ministry and the Polish Armed Forces have opened a visit to Vilnius.
Talks in Lithuania concentrate on future cooperation projects, joint participation in international military operations and protection of the Baltic States’ airspace. Defence Minister Bogdan Klich and Poland’s chief of staff general, Franciszek Gagor, are to lay wreaths at the tomb where the heart of Jozef Pilsudski is buried at the Rasos Cemetery in Vilnius, and pay respects at the grave of Jonas Basanaviczius, considered to be the father of Lithuania’s independence.
Finchannel.com
=====================================================================