“Trump’s isolationism helps Putin’s hybrid war in Europe” M. Cazzulani, Strategy XXI

Warsaw – Matteo Cazzulani, an analyst of the Center of Global Studies “Strategy XXI” with field of interest on Trans Atlantic relationships, underlined that Donald Trump, the front runner in the presidential primaries of the Republican Party, backs isolationism, a political theory quite popular in the United States before World War Two that opposes any commitment of the United States to international issues, as the promotion worldwide of democracy and liberty. 

Mr. Cazzulani, during an interview on the Polish National Radio Broadcast Polskie Radio, conducted by journalist Olena Babakova on April 28, also pointed out that the international allies to Trump oppose the strengthening of both the European Union and NATO. These political leaders, such as French National Front leader Marie Le Pen and the secretary of Italian Northern League Matteo Salvini, lobby the interest of the Russian Federation on energy, military and political issues, and openly urge the International Community to lift economic sanctions on the Kremlin over Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.

“Trump, who utilizes islamophobia as a means to gain support from American citizens worried and frustrated amid global crisis, considers Russian President Vladimir Putin to be an ally to his global crusade against Muslims. Moreover, Trump, whose victory in next U.S. general election would weaken NATO and endanger the security of the member states of the European Union, has proven himself to have a distorted perception of Europe by appointing Paul Manafort, an adviser to former Ukrainian autocratic leader Viktor Yanukovych, the head manager of his campaign” Mr. Cazzulani said.
ENDS
LINK TO COMMENTARY – http://www.polradio.pl/5/39/Artykul/250703
  

Ukraine. Cazzulani (Strategy XII): “Democratic regress under Yanukovych regime not enough covered”

MILAN – Matteo Cazzulani, an analyst of the center of global studies “Strategy XXI” said Ukraine is a part of Europe and there cannot be a free and secure Europe without a democratic and totally independent Ukraine. He also praised Italian PM Matteo Renzi for supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and urged the Italian government to do more in order to support Ukraine’s integration within the Euroatlantic community.
Mr. Cazzulani, during a presentation of his book on the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko “Ukraine, gas and handcuffs. The trial of Yulia Tymoshenko” held along with the head of FutureDem Lombardy Alessio Alberti and the President of the “Italy Ukraine Maidan” European Association Fabio Prevedello in the historical seat of Democratic Party -the ruling party of PM Renzi with a huge representation at the European Parliament- in Milan’s Garibaldi road, on January 8, also criticized the insufficient attention Italian media and political analysts paid to the democratic regress in Ukraine under the regime of Viktor Yanukovych.

“Today, Italian media are right to be concerned regarding the behavior of Mr. Orbán in Hungary and Mr. Kaczyński in Poland. However, they failed to cover and did not criticize in an proper way the democratic regress under the Yanukovych regime in Ukraine from 2010 to 2014, when dozens of dissidents, as Yulia Tymoshenko, Yuri Lutsenko and many others, were jailed and deprived of their civil rights. Thought already not from the political point of view, Ukraine is a part of Europe along with Poland, Hungary and other member states of the European Union as France, where a growing support to far right parties tied to Putin’s Russia is a serious threat for Europe” Mr. Cazzulani said.

  

EU migration policy. Cazzulani (Strategy XXI) on Polskie Radio 24: “Italy and Greece have not respected EU solidarity on Ukraine and Nabucco”

Italian and Polish version below /
La versione italiana e quella polacca seguono sotto /
Włoska i Polska wersja poniżej

EU migration policy. Cazzulani (Strategy XXI) on Polskie Radio 24: “Italy and Greece have not respected EU solidarity on Ukraine and Nabucco”

Warsaw – Matteo Cazzulani, an Associated Expert of the center of global studies ‘Strategy XXI’ on Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern European and energy issues, during a debate on Polskie Radio 24, on July 27, urged the Italian and Greek Governments to avoid hypocrisy when calling for solidarity among member states of the European Union.

Mr. Cazzulani, a guest of journalist Olena Babakova together with political analyst Pavel Usakov, underlined that the Italian and Greek Governments repeatedly ignored the call for solidarity within the EU made by countries of Central Eastern Europe in occasion of the maintenance of economic sanctions on Russia and the necessity to build the Nabucco pipeline.

“Italy and Greece are repeatedly opposing the extension of economic sanctions to Russia, ignoring the real threat Russia represents for Central Eastern Europe on the military and energy domain. Moreover, Italy and Greece never supported the Nabucco pipeline, a project conceived by the European Commission to drop energy dependence on Russia. Otherwise, Italy and Greece signed bilateral agreements with Moscow in order to support the Southstream pipeline, a project Russia conceived to raise energy dependence of Europe on Russia” Mr. Cazzulani said.

“Therefore, I believe Italy and Greece should end with their ambiguous relationship with Russia and must stop lobbying in favor of economic and energy interests of Moscow within the European Union prior to urge Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States to guest migrants. Solidarity is something Italy and Greece can get only by being coherently pro-European, and not strongly pro-Russian in an hypocrite way” Mr. Cazzulani added.

During the debate, Mr. Cazzulani also urged the European Union to liberalize the Schengen visa regime for Ukrainian citizens, in order to integrate Ukraine within the Trans Atlantic Community and regulate the majority of problems on migration issues between the European Union and Ukraine in so doing.

ENDS

LINK TO PUBLIC DEBATE ON POLSKIE RADIO 24

http://www.polskieradio.pl/130/2788/Artykul/1468457,Ustawa-o-in-vitro-elementem-kampanii-wyborczej

The press office of Matteo Cazzulani

Ko.P – ucrainagasemanette@gmail.com

Caso migranti. Cazzulani (Strategia XXI) su Polskie Radio 24: “Da Italia e Grecia nessuna solidarietà europea su sanzioni alla Russia e gasdotto Nabucco”

Varsavia – Matteo Cazzulani, Esperto Associato del centro studi di geopolitica “Strategia XXI”, durante una trasmissione su Polskie Radio 24, nella giornata di sabato, 27 Giugno, ha invitato i Governi di Italia e Grecia a non essere ipocriti nell’appellarsi alla solidarietà tra i Paesi membri dell’Unione Europea in merito alla questione dei migranti.

Cazzulani, ospite della giornalista Olena Babakova assieme all’analista politico Pavel Usakov, ha illustrato come Italia e Grecia abbiano de facto infranto il concetto di solidarietà tra i Paesi dell’Unione Europea in occasione del prolungamento delle sanzioni economiche alla Russia e della realizzazione del gasdotto Nabucco.

“Italia e Grecia sono i due Paesi che, più di tutti, si oppongono al prolungamento delle sanzioni economiche alla Russia, ignorando la richiesta di solidarietà chiesta a tal riguardo dai Paesi dell’Europa Centrale, che avvertono la minaccia della Russia sul piano militare ed energetico. Inoltre, Italia e Grecia non hanno sostenuto la realizzazione del Nabucco, un gasdotto concepito dalla Commissione Europea per diminuire la dipendenza energetica UE dalla Russia. Al contrario, Roma e Atene hanno firmato accordi bilaterali per sostenere il Southstream, un progetto concepito da Putin per incrementare la dipendenza energetica dell’UE dalla Russia” ha dichiarato Cazzulani.

“Per questa ragione, Italia e Grecia dovrebbero tagliare gli interessi bilaterali con la Russia e smetterla di appoggiare la propaganda di Putin in seno all’UE prima di pretendere l’aiuto di Polonia, Romania, Paesi Baltici, Ungheria, Repubblica Ceca e Slovacchia sulla questione dei migranti. La solidarietà interna all’UE la si ottiene solamente se si agisce coerentemente in favore dell’Europa, e non in maniera ipocrita a sostegno della Russia” ha aggiunto Cazzulani.

Cazzulani ha inoltre evidenziato la necessità di liberalizzare il regime dei visti Schengen per gli Ucraini, così da integrare davvero l’Ucraina nelle strutture trans atlantiche e, nel contempo, risolvere i problemi tra Unione Europea e Ucraina sulle questioni legate all’immigrazione.

FINE

LINK ALLA REGISTRAZIONE DELLA PUNTATA

http://www.polskieradio.pl/130/2788/Artykul/1468457,Ustawa-o-in-vitro-elementem-kampanii-wyborczej

Per l’Ufficio Stampa di Matteo Cazzulani

Ko.P – ucrainagasemanette@gmail.com

Polityka migracyjna UE. Cazzulani (Strategia XXI) w Polskie Radio 24: “Od Włoch i Grecji żadnej solidarności ws. Ukrainy i Nabucco”

Warszawa – Matteo Cazzulani, analityk polityczny Centrum Studiów Globalnych “Strategia XXI” ds. Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, stosunków transatlantyckich i energetyki, podczas audycji w Polskie Radio 24, w sobotę 27 czerwca br., podkreślił, że rządy Włoch i Grecji działają z hipokryzją co do solidarności wewnątrz Unii Europejskiej odnośnie azylu uchodźcoów z Afryki i krajów Bliskiego Wschodu.

Cazzulani, który wraz z analitykiem politycznym Pawlem Usakowem był gościem audycji przeprowadzonej przez dziennikarkę Olenę Babakową, skomentował, że właśnie Włochy i Grecja nigdy nie szanowały mechanizmu solidarnościowego wewnątrz Unii Europejskiej w sprawie przedłużenia sankcji wobec Rosji oraz realizacji planu gazociągu Nabucco.

“Rządy Włoch i Grecji ciągle przeciwstawiają przedłużenie sankcji gospodarczych wobec Rosji, mimo że kraje Europy Śródkowo-Wschodniej czują się wojskowo i energetycznie zagrożone przez Putina. Poza tym, Włochy i Grecja nigdy nie poparły gazociągu Nabucco, który miał zmniejszyć zależność energetyczną Unii Europejskiej od Rosji. Natomiast, państwa te jednostronnie lobbowały na rzecz Southstream, czyli gazociągu projektowanego przez Putina aby mocniej uzależnić UE od dostaw gazu Rosji” – stwierdził Cazzulani.

“Aby dostać pomoc od Polski, Rumunii, krajów bałtyckich, Węgier, Czech oraz Słowacji, lepiej byłoby, żeby rządy Włoch i Grecji zerwały z Putinem i stanowczo popierały unijną jednolitą politykę sankcji wobec Rosji oraz realizację europejskiej unii energetycznej. Włochy i Grecja muszą zrozumieć, że solidarność wewnątrz Unii Europejskiej będzie naprawdę możliwa wyłącznie wtedy, kiedy włoski i grecki rząd będą działały konsekwentnie na rzecz Europy, a nie – z hipokryzją – na rzecz Rosji” – argumentował Cazzulani.

Cazzulani stwierdził także, że Unia Europejska musiałaby zlikwidować reżim wizowy dla Ukraińców, aby zintegrować Ukrainę we wspólnocie transatlantyckiej, i w takim sposób regulować kwestię migracyjną pomiędzy Brukselą a Kijowem.

KONIEC

LINK DO NAGRANIA PROGRAMU

http://www.polskieradio.pl/130/2788/Artykul/1468457,Ustawa-o-in-vitro-elementem-kampanii-wyborczej

Biuro Prasowe Matteo Cazzulaniego

Ko.P ucrainagasemanette@gmail.com

Putin and ISIL: the United States could be the only hope for Europe

The United States’ President, Barack Obama, the likely to be democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, and the newly-elected Defense Secretary, Ash Carter, are more concerned about the security of the European Union than the politicians of the European Union are -or show to be. Russia’s warfare in Ukraine and the presence of ISIL in Libya made clear that the European Union is under attack

Philadelphia – Lots of political commentator and analyst argue that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is the weakest the United States had never had for what concerns foreign politics and geopolitical issues. That could be true, in particular for what concerns Europe. However, the United States, with the Obama democratic Presidential Administration along with the republican-led Congress, is the sole ally the European Union could trust in order to oppose current threats from Russia and ISIL.

Since he took office, President Obama had to shift the pivotal interest of the United States’ foreign policy from Europe to the Asia/Pacific, in order to oppose the rise of China, which is expected to become the first world superpower over the next years. It was a geopolitical need that President Obama was right to take in order to pursuit the economical, military and energy interest of the United States.

However, although in a less intensive way than it used to be under the Bush and Clinton Administrations, the Obama Administration kept the attention over Europe the highest possible. Both the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, and the United States’ State Secretary, John Kerry, punctually travel to the European Union member States whose national security is threatened the most by global threats to the west such as Putin’s Russia and ISIL.

President Obama also supported the realization of a NATO missiles defense system in Central Europe made of a radar station in Turkey and rotating missiles interceptors in Poland and Rumania. A previous version of the project, also known as the NATO spatial shield, was proposed by President George W Bush with a radar station in Czech Republic and batteries of Patriot missiles in Poland. However, the Obama Administration resigned from this project in order to assume a less confrontational attitude toward Russia.

With respect to the Ukrainian crisis, the United States imposed economic sanctions to the autocratic regime of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and led the European Union to do the same. After Russia military annexed Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine, the United States imposed economic sanctions also to Putin’s Russia, and finally led a too timid European Union to do the same once again.

Facing the systematical support given by Russia to the so called pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine, the United States was in favor of delivering lethal weapons to the Ukrainian Army in order to allow the Ukrainians to defend themselves and their borders from the powerful Russian army.

Although President Obama hasn’t endorsed any military rescuing plan to Ukraine, the newly appointed Defense Secretary, Ash Carter, a democrat who already served as the Vice Defense Secretary and the Pentagon Top Buyer under the Clinton and Obama Administrations, said himself to be in favor of giving the Ukrainian Army lethal weapons during his confirmation hearing at the Senate.

By his turn, the President of the Armed Service Committee of the United States’ Senate, John McCain, along with other republicans, openly urged President Obama to deliver lethal weapons the Ukrainian Army in order to avoid an eventual spread of the Russian military aggression to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which are member states of both NATO and the European Union.

A staunch position toward Russia was also expressed by Hillary Clinton, the former State Secretary and the front-runner within the next democratic primaries. During a private conversation with the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, Hillary Clinton stated that European Governments are too wimpy in dealing with Russia.

Hillary Clinton also urged the United Kingdom and the whole European Union to be less dependent on Russian gas and hydrocarbons, in order not to allow Putin to use energy as a means to realize his geopolitical goal of destabilizing the European Union.

With its staunch position toward Russia, the Obama Administration demonstrated to be worried about the national and military security of the European Union, one of the most important military and economic ally to the United States.

However, a deep antiamericanism quite diffused within European cultural and political elites -as frequent Anti-American rallies with red flags encouraged by politicized teachers and professors in Italy and Greece, and the too strong economic and political ties with Russia of France and Germany demonstrate- is weakening the European Union towards Russia and ISIL.

Both Putin’s Russia and ISIL are providing wars, based on terrorism, against Europe and its values. On the one hand, Putin, who always openly opposed any democratic development in Central Eastern Europe, provoked a mixture of hybrid wars in Ukraine and frozen conflicts in Georgia.

Putin is also systematically provoking member states both of NATO and the European Union, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, with air space violations. On the other hand, the ISIL, by committing dreadful crimes in Syria, Iraq, Libya, France and Denmark, declared war to Christianity, Judaism and moderate Islam.

The need of a defense compact and a Commander in Chief of the European Union

The European Union is under attack, but only the United States seems to be aware of it. Therefore, several steps need to be taken by the political elites of the European Union in order to ensure military and national security to all the European Union member states.

First of all, the European Union should order the State of War and urge NATO to strengthen military presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Polish, Rumania, Hungary and Slovakia in order to protect its eastern flank from Russia. The European Union should also urge the transformation of NATO into the army of the Trans Atlantic Community of the United States and the European Union.

As any other state in war, a Commander in Chief of the European Union must be appointed. The best individual to be selected for this office is the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, a Polish politician who, also because of his nationality, better understands political issues of Central Eastern Europe than any other top representative of the European Union from Germany, France, Luxembourg and Italy.

The European Union should also push for a fiscal compact on defense issues by requiring member states to raise their defense expenses to at least the 8% of the national budget.

Finally, the European Union should push for the finalization of the negotiations over the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -TTIP. The European Union should also urge the Obama Administration to quick evolve the TTIP into a political agreement of full-scale aimed to the realization of the Trans Atlantic Community.

Proposals written above could seem to be political fiction. Lots of reader accused the author of this commentary of making political fiction when he predicted a democratic regression in Ukraine the day after former the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came to power.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern and energy issues
@MatteoCazzulani

Putin to seize Estonia and Latvia after Ukraine. Let’s listen to Brzezinski

Philadelphia – Tangible steps in order to avoid a dangerous conflict of world dimensions. This is what Zbignew Brzezinski, the foreign policy adviser to the President of the United States Jimmy Carter, stated during a hearing at the Senate of the United States of America.

Brzezinski, an American expert of global issues born in Poland -and so aware of politics of Central Eastern Europe- urged the United States, along with other NATO allies such as United Kingdom, Germany and France, to pre-position military companies in Estonia and Latvia in order to deter Russian military aggression toward the Baltic States.

Brzezinski, by observing the Russian army continually violating Estonian and Latvian air spaces, and considering the Russian Administration repeatedly provoking Estonian and Latvian Governments, predicted, over the next years, a Russian seize of Tallinn and Riga, the capitals of Estonia and Latvia respectively.

According to Brzezinski, in his move of invading Estonia and Latvia, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, could be discouraged only if the United States and NATO would reinforce their military presence in former USSR states which are now part of both the European Union and NATO with a direct border to Russia.

Brzezinski argued that the presence of a small NATO contingent in the Baltic States does not represent any threat to Russia, but will eventually give Putin a clear demonstration that Estonia and Latvia are part of the Trans Atlantic Community, and will be defended by NATO in case of military aggression.

During the hearing, Brzezinski also urged the United States and the European Union to give military support to Ukraine in order to allow the Ukrainian people to defend itself from Russian military invasion.

At the same time, Brzezinski argued the necessity to freeze any rapprochement of Ukraine towards NATO in order not to give Putin any motivation to further occupy the east of Ukraine.

Brzezinski’s statement is so well argued that it sounds prophetic and far-sighted.

The invasion of Estonia and Latvia by Russia is all but an hypothetical geopolitical event. Apart from this, as Brzezinski noticed, only one year ago nobody really anticipated that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Brzezinski’s statement shows how the strengthening of NATO eastern flank must be a priority for the whole Trans Atlantic Community.

The permanence of NATO military companies in the Baltic States and other countries of Central Eastern Europe, as well as the realization of a NATO Spatial Shield in Central Europe -with a radar station in Turkey and rotating ballistic interceptors in Poland and Rumania- are measures needed to guarantee the national security of the whole Trans Atlantic Community from two of the most dangerous global threats to the western civilization, such as Putin’s Russia and the ISIL.

Last but not least, Brzezinski’s conviction about a probable Russian military aggression towards Estonia and Latvia over the next years must make the Trans Atlantic Community radically change its leadership on Russian issues.

The axis of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande demonstrated itself to be too incline to compromise with Russia, even when Putin repeatedly violated the international law.

On the contrary, the European Union needs to be more integrated within the Trans Atlantic Community. Therefore, Merkel and Hollande should let the guide of the diplomatic initiative of the west towards Russia to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron.

An assertive diplomatic initiative towards Russia led by Obama and Cameron, eventually along with the President of the European Council Donald Tusk, a Polish that knows the situation in Central Eastern Europe better than other top representatives of the European Union, is both a dream and a provocation.

However, Brzezinski’s warning about a Russian invasion of Estonia and Latvia is a provocation too. And the need for the west to guarantee the political independence of Ukraine, in order to contain Russian imperialism over the next centuries, was another “provocation” of Brzezinski which, in the end, demonstrated itself to be real and true.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern Europe and energy issues
@MatteoCazzulani

Why Obama is right not to give military support to Ukraine. And why he is not

Philadelphia – For someone, repeated territorial violations towards member states of the European Union made by the Russian Air Force, and a worrying rearmament of the Russian Army on NATO borders, are enough to move the west to call for a strong reaction to Putin’s warfare in Ukraine and Central Eastern Europe.

However, it was clear that the Presidential Administration of the United States decided not to react with the use of force to Russian military threat to Ukraine and important member states of both the European Union and NATO when Ben Rhodes, the deputy security adviser to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, stated on CNN television that the United States won’t give any military support to Ukraine.

The decision of the Obama Administration came after the republican-led Congress passed a bill to authorize the United States to help support the Ukrainian Army, in order to oppose Russian-backed “separatist” in Eastern Ukraine and equilibrate the balance of military power in the region in so doing.

Despite the Congress voted in favor of giving military help to Ukraine, and several rumors seemed to confirm the willingness of the White House to finally help Ukraine with lethal weapons, the democratic-wing Obama Administration decided not to engage itself in the conflict.

In so doing, President Obama let Ukrainians without an important help that could eventually oppose Russian aggression to the former USSR member and could also reassure important allies to the United States of Central Eastern Europe, such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria.

If seen from the European point of view, the decision of the Obama Administration is difficult to be accepted. However, it is not at all illogical if examined according to the new strategy that President Obama took in foreign policy after the spectacular defeat of the Democratic Party on last November mid-term election.

Obama decided to utilize his executive power to push the United States to have a more assertive role in the Asia/Pacific, a region in which the United States are called to contain the growing power of China both economically and militarily.

The greater attention of President Obama toward the Asia/Pacific is demonstrated by President Obama’s strong support to a quick finalization of the Trans Pacific Partnership, an agreement planed to realize a free-trade area among traditional allies to the United States in the Asia/Pacific, such as Canada, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Singapore, and other important states of the region, such as Peru, Brunei and Vietnam.

Moreover, the Obama Administration proposed to utilize the majority of a $ 534 billion defense budget to strengthen the military presence of the US army in the Asia/Pacific, whereas only $ 789 Million is going to be utilized for the rotating presence of NATO soldiers in Central Eastern Europe.

Obama, who also reactivated diplomatic ties with Cuba in order to strengthen the presence of the United States in the western hemisphere, is so confirming to pay less attention to Europe than other United States Presidential Administrations used to do, as it used to be during the presidencies of George W Bush Senior and Junior, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Moreover, there are at least two other reasons why President Obama refused to give military support to Ukraine. The first one is filed with the inconvenience, according to the vision of Obama, to raise military tensions with Russia while the United States are committed to contain other international threats, such as ISIL and China.

A military support to Ukraine will be also inconvenient for Obama because of the internal political situation within the United States, where Obama is seeking support by the most liberal democrats on several issues such as the reduction of greenhouse emissions and the resignation to any military initiative in the world, except the one against ISIL.

Last but not least, the decision of the Obama Administration not to give military support to Ukraine could be also tied to the lack of trust of the United States towards the Ukrainian army, which is still affected by several cases of corruption and mutiny.

The resignation of President Obama to give military support to Ukraine should be balanced by other measures which are necessary to help Ukraine and ensuring the national security of NATO member states of Central Eastern Europe, of which the United States are called to take care facing the inability of the European Union to lead a staunch opposition towards Russia.

First of all, the Presidential Administration of the United States should give economic help to Ukraine in order to allow the Ukrainian Government of PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk to realize important reforms that the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, promised the international community to be approved as soon as possible.

President Obama should also push for an implementation of economic sanctions toward Russia, in order to led the Russian economy to a definitive collapse after world energy prices dramatically dropped over the last months.

Moreover, Obama, along with the TPP agreement, should push for a quick ratification of the Trans Atlantic Trade and Industrial Partnership -TTIP. This will certainly led the United States and the European Union to a further economic and eventually political integration.

Only together, the United States and the European Union will be able to oppose the raise of China and to successfully answer to threats to global security such as Putin’s Russia and ISIL.

That’s why the TTIP should be considered not only as a mere economical agreement, but also as the adequate stimulus to evolve NATO into a military force committed all around the world to the preservation of the values of the Trans Atlantic Community, Democracy, Liberty, Human Rights and Prosperity.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern European and energy issues
@MatteoCazzulani

Why Obama is right not to give military support to Ukraine. And why he is not

Philadelphia – For someone, repeated territorial violations towards member states of the European Union made by the Russian Air Force, and a worrying rearmament of the Russian Army on NATO borders, are enough to move the west to call for a strong reaction to Putin’s warfare in Ukraine and Central Eastern Europe.

However, it was clear that the Presidential Administration of the United States decided not to react with the use of force to Russian military threat to Ukraine and important member states of both the European Union and NATO when Ben Rhodes, the deputy security adviser to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, stated on CNN television that the United States won’t give any military support to Ukraine.

The decision of the Obama Administration came after the republican-led Congress passed a bill to authorize the United States to help support the Ukrainian Army, in order to oppose Russian-backed “separatist” in Eastern Ukraine and equilibrate the balance of military power in the region in so doing.

Despite the Congress voted in favor of giving military help to Ukraine, and several rumors seemed to confirm the willingness of the White House to finally help Ukraine with lethal weapons, the democratic-wing Obama Administration decided not to engage itself in the conflict.

In so doing, President Obama let Ukrainians without an important help that could eventually oppose Russian aggression to the former USSR member and could also reassure important allies to the United States of Central Eastern Europe, such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria.

If seen from the European point of view, the decision of the Obama Administration is difficult to be accepted. However, it is not at all illogical if examined according to the new strategy that President Obama took in foreign policy after the spectacular defeat of the Democratic Party on last November mid-term election.

Obama decided to utilize his executive power to push the United States to have a more assertive role in the Asia/Pacific, a region in which the United States are called to contain the growing power of China both economically and militarily.

The greater attention of President Obama toward the Asia/Pacific is demonstrated by President Obama’s strong support to a quick finalization of the Trans Pacific Partnership, an agreement planed to realize a free-trade area among traditional allies to the United States in the Asia/Pacific, such as Canada, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Singapore, and other important states of the region, such as Peru, Brunei and Vietnam.

Moreover, the Obama Administration proposed to utilize the majority of a $ 534 billion defense budget to strengthen the military presence of the US army in the Asia/Pacific, whereas only $ 789 Million is going to be utilized for the rotating presence of NATO soldiers in Central Eastern Europe.

Obama, who also reactivated diplomatic ties with Cuba in order to strengthen the presence of the United States in the western hemisphere, is so confirming to pay less attention to Europe than other United States Presidential Administrations used to do, as it used to be during the presidencies of George W Bush Senior and Junior, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Moreover, there are at least two other reasons why President Obama refused to give military support to Ukraine. The first one is filed with the inconvenience, according to the vision of Obama, to raise military tensions with Russia while the United States are committed to contain other international threats, such as ISIL and China.

A military support to Ukraine will be also inconvenient for Obama because of the internal political situation within the United States, where Obama is seeking support by the most liberal democrats on several issues such as the reduction of greenhouse emissions and the resignation to any military initiative in the world, except the one against ISIL.

Last but not least, the decision of the Obama Administration not to give military support to Ukraine could be also tied to the lack of trust of the United States towards the Ukrainian army, which is still affected by several cases of corruption and mutiny.

The resignation of President Obama to give military support to Ukraine should be balanced by other measures which are necessary to help Ukraine and ensuring the national security of NATO member states of Central Eastern Europe, of which the United States are called to take care facing the inability of the European Union to lead a staunch opposition towards Russia.

First of all, the Presidential Administration of the United States should give economic help to Ukraine in order to allow the Ukrainian Government of PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk to realize important reforms that the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, promised the international community to be approved as soon as possible.

President Obama should also push for an implementation of economic sanctions toward Russia, in order to led the Russian economy to a definitive collapse after world energy prices dramatically dropped over the last months.

Moreover, Obama, along with the TPP agreement, should push for a quick ratification of the Trans Atlantic Trade and Industrial Partnership -TTIP. This will certainly led the United States and the European Union to a further economic and eventually political integration.

Only together, the United States and the European Union will be able to oppose the raise of China and to successfully answer to threats to global security such as Putin’s Russia and ISIL.

That’s why the TTIP should be considered not only as a mere economical agreement, but also as the adequate stimulus to evolve NATO into a military force committed all around the world to the preservation of the values of the Trans Atlantic Community, Democracy, Liberty, Human Rights and Prosperity.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern European and energy issues
@MatteoCazzulani

Obama, Cameron to teach European elites how Europe should be

Philadelphia – Diplomacy is good, but firmness is better. This is the difference between the “old” Europe and the more developed “Trans Atlantic” Europe which looks at the Trans Atlantic partnership as the sole means to strengthen the European Union as a global player and preserving the values of the west in a new multipolar world threatened by international terrorism.

In an article composed by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the PM of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, published on the prestigious “Times”, is a masterpiece of the good attitude the European Union should assume after the wave of terrorist attacks in Paris.

In the article, entitled “We won’t the voice of freedom be muzzled”, President Obama and PM Cameron staunchly affirm the support of both the United States and the United Kingdom to France and to all countries targeted by international terrorism.

President Obama and PM Cameron rightly call not to connect international terrorism with Islam, because not all Muslims can be considered as terrorist. However, the President of the United States and the PM of the United Kingdom are going to renew their historical friendship and joint international commitment against those nations and people who use religious extremism as a means of terror and death.

President Obama and PM Cameron mention the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -ISIL- as a terrorist state. Moreover, the President of the United States and the PM of the United Kingdom also call the European Union and the whole international community to strongly oppose Russian military warfare against Ukraine.

The President of the United States and the PM of the United Kingdom write that diplomacy towards Russia should remain the best way to solve the Ukrainian crisis, but they also argue that the support to pro-Russian terrorists in eastern Ukraine given by Russia is a threat to the prosperity of the whole European Union.

What President Obama and PM Cameron have written mirrors how the European Union should act in today’s world, in order to face the threat of both religious and nationalist terrorism, as the one of Al Qaeda and the one of Russia respectively.

The European Union which is needed today is based on the friendship between Washington and London, with a more important role within the institutions of the European Union by the wisest member states of the European Union, such as Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

The United States and the United Kingdom have been jointly committed in Europe to the preservation of the values of the west against the USSR and the dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic during Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton & Tony Blair eras respectively. Now, a joint commitment of Barack Obama & David Cameron is needed to protect Europe from religious fundamentalism and Russian military aggression.

The European Union which is needed today must make Europe a part of the Trans Atlantic Community, together with the United States, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan and other world countries who share the values of the west – democracy, liberty, human rights, progress and peace.

Otherwise, the European Union which is not needed is the one that, simultaneously with the publication of the article by President Obama and PM Cameron, calls for a detente towards Russia, although Moscow nothing did to respect human rights and the international rule of law in an independent state as Ukraine is.

The Europe which is not needed is the one based on the “old” pro-Russian French-German axis, hostage of Russian lobbyist and ruled by an anti-American political elites.

The Europe which wins in today’s world geopolitics is the Trans Atlantic one of Cameron, Tusk, Grybauskaite, Renzi and even Obama. A Europe which has no fear of fanatic terrorists and Russian bears.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic issues
@MatteoCazzulani

TTIP and Trans Atlantic Community: Europe must wake up before it’s too late

Philadelphia – It is always moving to held and take part in an international conference realized in both Philadelphia and Milan, but it is definitively more exciting to debate with member of institutions about issues that will certainly have a great importance over the next decades.

During an international conference on the Treaty of Trans Atlantic Trade and Industrial Partnership -TTIP-, held on Friday December 18 at the seat of Lombardy a regional council with a Skype connection with the United States, the need to call Europe to push for a quick ratification of TTIP, in order to integrate the United States and Europe into a consolidated Trans Atlantic Community, clearly emerged.

Hopefully, the Trans Atlantic Community should not only unite the United States and the European Union on economic and political issues, but it should preserve the values of the western civilization -democracy, liberty progress and peace- in a world in which new global powers with low developed democratic system and institutions, such as China, Russia and India, will definitively grew their global leadership.

Despite of its high importance from the geopolitical point of view, the realization of the Trans Atlantic Community, and the signature of TTIP, is far from being soon realized because of the opposition of several countries of the European Union on sanitarian and cultural issues, such as GMO regulation and the rule on copyrights on movies produced in the European Union.

The opposition to the signature of TTIP within the European Union is also tied to the presence of a deep antiamericanism in prominent member states of the European Union such as France, Italy and Germany. In these countries, pro-Russian lobbies and pro-Arabian cultural elites succeed to influence French, Italian and German politicians to oppose tight relations with the United States.

On the other hand, TTIP risks not to be signed due to the low interest towards Europe demonstrated by the Presidential Administration of Barack Obama. Since he took office in 2009, President Obama shifted US foreign policy from Europe to the Asia/Pacific region, which is going to become the center of world geopolitics over the next decades.

President Obama recently pushed for the ratification of a Trans Pacific Agreement of economic and trade cooperation similar to the TTIP. He also strengthened political and military ties with countries of the Asia/Pacific allied to the United States, such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan.

President Obama reached an historical deal with China for the reduction of greenhouse emissions, and took the historical decision to normalize relations with Cuba. By these two facts, the United States demonstrated to have higher interest towards the Asia/Pacific and the Western Hemisphere rather than towards Europe.

The signature of TTIP seems to be hard to be realized, but both the United States and the European Union could be interested in finalizing the Trans Atlantic Partnership on two important issues, such as energy and economy.

With the exploitation of shale gas and oil, the United States is supposed to become one of the main exporters of gas over the next decades due to the shale bonanza on the American soil. For this reason, the United States is looking for stable markets on which to ship and sell its natural resources.

The Obama Presidential Administration already signed pre-agreements for shipping LNG to several countries of the Asia/Pacific, such as India, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan. Moreover, the United States are also interested in shipping shale gas to Europe, where member states of the European Union are highly energy dependent on gas and oil supplies from Russia and Algeria.

Another issue on which the United States and Europe could find motivations to sign TTIP is economy. The United States, who has started an economic growth after a period of economic crisis, needs to find markets culturally close to the United States where US industries could easy ship and sell their products.

The Asia/Pacific region is, for the United States, a growing market which could allow US Industries to boots their revenues. However, the market of the European Union is the most prepared, at least from the cultural point of view, to immediately get and buy American products, and to guarantee US industries immediate revenues.

The European Union must understand the geopolitical importance of TTIP as the first step for the realization of the Trans Atlantic Community, which should preserve and strengthen the western civilization in a new word order -or disorder- in which China, India and Russia are rivals of both the United States and the European Union, rather than potential allies of the west, as pro-Russian lobbies want to make the people believe, in particularly in Italy.

The realization of TTIP should be also accompanied by the strengthening of NATO, in order to allow the Trans Atlantic Community to depend on a strong military legacy committed to the preservation of western values and interest all over the world.

In a world of big changes and a renewed world disorder, the European Union has to give more importance to its cultural background of historical and ideological brotherhood with the United States in the name of democracy and freedom, rather than to bilateral business ties with unfree societies and countries.

The European Union needs to wake up before it’s too late.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic Ties
@MatteoCazzulani

In Ukraine a new Government with three Foreign Ministers was launched

Philadelphia – Five pro-western parties and three foreign Ministers will help the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and Ukrainian PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk to evolve Ukraine into a modern democracy totally integrated within the Trans Atlantic Community.

On Tuesday December 2, the Ukrainian parliament backed a new government led by PM Yatsenyuk by an “ayes” vote of 228 MPs.

Yatsenyuk, who has been confirmed the PM of Ukraine after his People Front gained the majority of the popular vote in last Ukrainian early parliamentary election, stated that only high professionals and politicians have been appointed the Ministers of the new government.

In addition to the confirmation of Yatsenyuk as the PM of Ukraine, moderate People Front obtained the appointment of three own representatives, Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, Arsen Avakov and Pavlo Petrenko, as the Deputy PM, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Justice respectively.

The appointment of Kyrylenko, Avakov and Petrenko at the helm of three key-Ministers has been possible after a four week-long negotiation between the People Front of PM Yatsenyuk and the centrist Bloc of President Poroshenko.

Finally, Poroshenko Bloc agreed on the request of the People Front to propose the Ministers of Internal Affairs and Justice of the new government.

By his part, Poroshenko Bloc, who gained the majority of seats in the parliament thanks to the victory of several own candidates in majoritarian colleges, appointed three foreign professionals, Georgian Aleksandr Kvitashvili, Lithuanian Ajvaras Abramovicius and US citizen Natalia Yaresko, as the Minister of Heath, the Minister of economic development and the Minister of Finance respectively.

According to President Poroshenko, the appointment of these three high qualified foreigners will help the cabinet of PM Yatsenyuk to pass urgent reforms to harmonize Ukrainian financial, economical, juridical and health system to the standards of the European Union.

President Poroshenko, who also confirmed Pavlo Klimkin and Stepan Poltorak as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense respectively, underlined that Ukraine must become a part of the Trans Atlantic Community both from political and military point of view.

Few hours after the launch of the new Ukrainian government, NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg stated that NATO will certainly examine the concession of NATO membership to Ukraine whether the new Ukrainian government will send an official application.

By its part, the European Union invited the new Ukrainian government to pass a urgent legislation to realize the most important points of the Association Agreement.

This important document, which aims to integrate Ukrainian economy within the EU common market, has been simultaneously ratified by the European Parliament and Ukrainian Rada last September.

Finally, all other members of the governmental coalition got offices within the new Government.

Samopomich got the appointment of Oleksy Pavlenko as the Minister of rural affairs, whereas the Radical Party of Ukraine endorsed the appointment of Valeriy Voshchesky as Deputy PM.

Finally, Batkivshchyna party obtained the appointment of Ihor Zhdanov and Ihor Shevchenko as the minister of Youth and Sport and the Minister of Ecology respectively.

Matteo Cazzulani
Analyst of Trans Atlantic, Central Eastern Europe and energy issues
@MatteoCazzulani