WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Turkey’s pending purchase of the Russian S-400
missile defense system presents a national security problem for NATO, which
would not be able to deploy F-35 aircraft alongside the Russian systems, senior
U.S. officials said on Thursday.
The officials, who briefed a group of reporters on condition of anonymity,
said Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 system was not tantamount to it withdrawing
from NATO, but that Ankara’s purchase should be viewed as a national security
issue, not a merely commercial decision.
“We are continuing to work on a range of options to ensure that Turkey’s
participation in the NATO alliance and bilateral relationship can continue
unabated and unimpinged,” one of the officials said.
“The gravity of the risk to the F-35 both to the United States and to NATO
allies is such that the two systems cannot be co-located.”
NATO member Turkey has repeatedly said it is committed to buying the Russian
missile defense system, despite warnings from the United States that the S-400s
cannot be integrated into the NATO air defense system.
The U.S. State Department last week said Washington had told Turkey that if
it buys the S-400 systems, the United States will have to reassess Ankara’s
participation in the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter program.
Washington has sought to persuade Turkey to instead purchase the American-made
Patriot defense system, but Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has said Ankara
remains committed to the deal for the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile
The senior U.S. officials said Washington’s offer to sell Patriots to Turkey
continued and that the two sides remain in negotiations about it.
The Turkish government has already missed a “soft deadline” set by
Washington to decide whether to buy a $3.5 billion Raytheon Co. Patriot missile
shield system. The formal offer expires at the end of this month.
On Thursday, Erdogan repeated that it was not possible for Ankara to back
out of the deal with Russia.
Turkey’s insistence on buying the Russian system risks triggering a fresh
diplomatic crisis with Washington. If Ankara goes ahead with the Russian deal,
Turkey also could face sanctions under a U.S. law known as Countering America’s
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
The last diplomatic crisis between the two NATO allies contributed to
driving the Turkish lira to a record low in August. Disputes over strategy in
Syria, Iran sanctions and the detention of U.S. consular staff remain
unresolved, and the issue of missile defense threatens to widen the rift again.
The sale of the F-35 to Turkey could be halted should the country buy a
Russian air defense system. (Staff Sgt. Andrew Lee/U.S. Air Force)
WASHINGTON — The top uniformed officer in NATO and the head of
American forces in Europe said Tuesday that if Turkey goes through with its
decision to buy a Russian air defense system, he would recommend the
Pentagon refuse to give Ankara its planned purchase of the F-35 joint strike
Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti said it would be his “best military advice” that
sales to Turkey of the F-35 be cut, should that nation buy the S-400 air defense system.
“If they accept the S-400 to establish it in Turkey, there is
first the issue that it’s not interoperable with NATO systems, nor is it
interoperable inside of our integrated missile defense system. The second has
to do with the F-35. It presents a problem to all of our aircraft, but
specifically the F-35, I believe,” Scaparrotti said.
“My best military advice would be that we don’t then follow
through with the F-35 — flying it or working with an ally that is working with
Russian systems, particularly air defense systems, with one of our most
advanced technological capabilities,” he added.
The comments came in an exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen,
D-N.H., who has sponsored legislative language to to explore Turkey’s
removal from the F-35 program.
Concerns about Turkey’s decision to procure the S-400 are nothing new. Officials in the U.S. and Europe believe
Russia could gain a dangerous amount of information on the fifth-generation
fighter should the systems be linked.
But Scaparrotti’s statement is particularly notable, as he
also serves as supreme allied commander of NATO. His comments come weeks after
the Munich Security Conference, where U.S. Vice President Mike Pence warned Turkey that “we will not stand idly by while NATO
allies purchase weapons from our adversaries. We cannot ensure the defense of
the West if our allies grow dependent on the East.”
Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry’s most comprehensive news and information straight to
Turkey plans to buy 100 joint strike fighters over the course
of the program, and its first F-35 pilots have already begun training alongside
U.S. pilots at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. Turkish companies play a key
industrial role in the program as one of the producers of the center fuselage
and the maker of the cockpit display.
As a result of the planned S-400 procurement, the Pentagon
launched a large study into whether it would be possible to remove Turkey from
the F-35 industrial base.
Asked about the industrial base, the general said: “For them I
would underscore this is a huge decision for Turkey. I have talked to them, as
all of our leadership has.” He added that there is a team on the ground today
talking with the Turks about the issue.
“I would hope they would reconsider this decision on the
S-400, one system, but potentially forfeit many of the other systems and one of
the most important systems we provide them,” he said.
One such system besides the F-35 that could be impacted should
Russia buy the S-400 is the Patriot missile defense system, which Turkey was recently cleared to buy.
At the conference, Adnan Tanriverdi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s top military advisor, delivered a speech detailing the inner workings of the “Islamic Confederal State” that Tanriverdi’s Strategic Research Center for Defenders of Justice (ASSAM) aims to establish with 61 Muslim countries.
Judging by an article Tanriverdi penned in 2009, the purpose of this joint Islamic force is to defeat Israel, which “should be made to get engaged [in war] and the length of the war should be extended.”
Erdogan and his chief military advisor are obviously engaging in projection. It is Turkey that has ethnically cleansed itself of Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians, and that is now targeting Syrian Kurds. It is the Turkish government’s continued aggression against various peoples in Israel, Syria, Iraq, Cyprus and other countries that is a threat to world peace; not Israel. It is Turkey, not Israel, whose destabilizing foreign policy needs to change.
Istanbul recently hosted the second
Union Congress,” sponsored mainly by the
Strategic Research Center for Defenders of Justice (ASSAM), which is headed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan’s chief military advisor, Adnan Tanriverdi, a retired lieutenant general and an Islamist .
At the conference, Tanriverdi delivered a speech detailing the inner workings of the “Islamic
Confederal State” that ASSAM aims to establish with 61 Muslim countries.
In his address, Tanriverdi said that a “rapid deployment force”
should be created. Judging by an article Tanriverdi penned in 2009, the purpose of this joint
Islamic force is to defeat Israel, which “should be made to get engaged
and the length of the war should be extended.”
“If Israel has to call all of
its reserve soldiers to duty,” he explained, “there will be no one
left at home or in their businesses. It cannot continue like that for a long
Tanriverdi also suggested how this
could be accomplished:
“The Defense Ministers of
Islamic Countries should be invited to an urgent meeting, at which
possibilities for ‘defense cooperation’ should be examined; Turkey, Iran,
Syria, the Iraqi Resistance Organization and Palestine should be the core of
Within this context, he said, a
“‘rapid Deployment Force of Islam,’ which will consist of an amphibious
brigade, an armored brigade and an aero-landing brigade, should be
He went on:
“A peace force of Islamic
countries should be deployed in Gaza… International efforts should continue,
and the use of military force in Islamic countries should be encouraged. A
joint military operation by our ground, naval and air forces should be carried
out in the international waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. Aid convoys from
Turkey, accompanied by Turkish warplanes, should land at the Gaza port. The
resistance movements in Gaza should be supported with anti-tank and
low-altitude anti-aircraft weapons.
“An aid fund should be formed
by Islamic countries; the monthly budget of the legitimate Palestinian
government should be paid from this fund and every adult individual in [the
Palestinian territories] should be paid a monthly salary… Egypt should be
pressured to open the Rafah border crossing. Syria should be encouraged to
enhance its military presence on the Israeli border.”
Tanriverdi also claimed that:
“Turkish states, throughout
history, prevented 21 crusades through which the West targeted Islam. Turkey
did not get involved in the invasions following World War II, the establishment
of the State of Israel and the US invasion of Iraq, which we could call the
22nd, 23rd and 24th crusades. It is Turkey’s duty to rectify this. Avoiding
this responsibility would be contrary to our historic mission, our commitment to
the civilization to which we belong and to Turkey’s survival.”
Tanriverdi’s views are the impetus
for the founding in 2012 of his company, “SADAT International Defense
Consultancy.” On its official website, Tanriverdi writes:
“The Turkish Armed Forces give
services of training, consultancy and equipment to 22 friendly Turkish and
Muslim countries. But it is impossible for them to respond to all the needs of
60 Islamic countries in the defense sector.
“In order to give services in
needed fields, to prevent dependence on crusader-minded colonialist countries,
to help form an environment of defense industry and defense cooperation among
Islamic countries, and to serve the Islamic alliance, SADAT was formed by 23
founding shareholders and with the support of 64 army officers and
non-commissioned officers who have successfully served the Turkish armed forces
and who are respectful of the religious sensitivities of Islamic
Four years after SADAT’s
establishment, Necati Yılmaz, an MP from the opposition Republican People’s
Party (CHP), submitted a written parliamentary motion to then-Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım, questioning
SADAT’s activities and international connections. The motion read, in part:
“SADAT states on its official
website that that it tries to ‘help establish a military force in the Islamic
world that will be self-sufficient.’ With what countries does SADAT have
connections? Is there any other country to which SADAT gives military and
intelligence training? Does it have camps in other countries?
“Is it true that Sadat has
connections with al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and ISIS? Is it true that Sadat has trained
Yıldırım did not answer the motion
during his tenure, but allegations about SADAT’s providing military training to
jihadist organizations abroad and to some pro-Erdogan groups in “secret
military camps” in Turkey have not subsided. Tanriverdi and other SADAT
officials have repeatedly denied the accusations, going as far as to sue some newspapers that published pieces repeating them.
In an interview last January with the pro-government newspaper, Habertürk,
Tanriverdi called claims about SADAT “slanderous” and
“imaginary.” Replaying SADAT’s “founding objective,” he
insisted that it “engages with the state organs of friendly nations and
provides them with services of corporate consultancy, training and equipment in
line with their laws in their own countries.”
“With very pure and decent
feelings, we just want to transfer the experiences of our armed forces to
Islamic countries. That is all. We also want the Islamic countries to get
He failed, however, to remind
readers that SADAT’s objective is to unite against the West and Israel. He also omitted comments from his 2009 article entitled “Palestine too should have an army”,
“The states whose peoples are
Muslim should either protect Palestine with their own armed forces or form a
modern armed force for Palestine to deal with Israel.”
Although Tanriverdi’s dream of an
“army of Islam” to fight Israel has yet to be realized, his company,
SADAT, seems to be aiding Palestinian-Arab jihadist organizations targeting
Israel. In February 2018, for instance, Israel’s internal security service, the
Shin Bet, said that Hamas was funneling terror funds to the West Bank and
Gaza through Turkey. The Shin Bet statement also accused Turkey of aiding
Hamas’ military build-up via SADAT. Kamil Tekeli, a Turkish law professor who
was arrested in Israel in mid-January, told his interrogators that SADAT sends
money and arms to Hamas. Tekeli, after being interrogated, was deported back to
Turkey, according to the Israeli media. The Turkish Foreign Ministry, however, rejected the Shin Bet’s accusations.
Tanriverdi’s statements and his
company nevertheless appear to reflect Erdogan’s worldview.
“We as Turkey and myself — as
long as I am in charge — can never have a positive view of Israel,”
Erdogan said in 2014. “The obvious reality is that Israel is the
country that threatens peace in the world and in the Middle East.”
Erdogan and his chief military
advisor are obviously engaging in projection. It is Turkey that has ethnically
cleansed itself of Greeks,
Assyrians and Armenians, that refuses to recognize the religious rights of the Alevi minority and that is now targeting Syrian Kurds. It is the Turkish government’s continued aggression
against various peoples in Israel,
Syria, Iraq, Cyprus and other countries that is a threat to world peace, not Israel. It
is Turkey, not Israel, whose destabilizing foreign policy needs to change.
Turkey has for a long time wanted to become a nuclear power. This goal is
about to be realized, as decades of lobbying and laboring have come to fruition
with the construction of a nuclear plant on the Black Sea coastline backed with
Russian help that will be operational in 2023, the 100-year anniversary of the
modern Turkish republic:
Turkey’s elusive quest for harnessing nuclear energy dates back to times
which most of us perceive only through the black-and-white footage of 1950s and
stories of our parents and grandparents. Launched by President Eisenhower’s
Atoms for Peace program, it took off steadily as by 1956 Turkey already boasted
a reactor research facility not far away from Istanbul, on the shores of lake
Küçükçekmece. By the 1970s the Turkish authorities have pinpointed the most
suitable site for the construction of a nuclear plant – they have chosen Akkuyu
on the Anatolian coast, making use of its proximity to the sea, low population
density and at the same time closeness to big demand hubs, as well as its low
What the Turkish planners envisaged some 50 years ago is progressively being
realized with the Rosatom-led Akkuyu project. In many ways, the Akkuyu project
is a novelty – it is Rosatom’s first project constructed at a build-own-operate
(BOO) parity and its first-ever real endeavor in the Levant. Yet when the
Chernobyl-entailed mass hysteria slowly started to fade in the late 1990s,
Russia was nowhere to be seen in the list of interested parties – at that time
it seemed that either Westinghouse of Framatome (the predecessor of Areva)
would get it. However, by the time the Turkish government issued a tender for
the construction of Akkuyu, only Rosatom filed an official bid to build four
1200MW pressurized water reactors, supported by a commitment to dispose of all
the plant’s used nuclear fuel.
From there on, things took a swift turn – an intergovernmental agreement was
signed in 2010, the legislative basis for the construction was erected (as
Turkey had previously no comprehensive set of laws for nuclear energy), a
limited construction resolution was issued in 2016 to be followed two years
later by the official start of construction works. The plan is to commission
the nuclear plant in 2023 when the Turkish Republic celebrates its centenary.
Interestingly, the nuclear project went forward despite significant turbulences
in the Russo-Turkish relations, such as the 2015 shooting down of a Russian
fighter jet over (allegedly) Syrian territory. Tariff negotiations were
successful, too – the sides fixed the electricity tariff at 0.1235 USD/KWh for
the first 15 years of operation with the option to increase it to 0.1533
USD/KWh should there be any payback issues.
Roughly around the same time as Ankara committed to the Akkuyu Nuclear
Plant, it had also kick-started the quest to build another nuclear plant, this
time on the Black Sea coast of the country, in Sinop. Somewhat differently to
Akkuyu, the government went for a build-operate-transfer (BOT) scheme with
Sinop, signing a contract with Atmea, the Franco-Japanese consortium comprising
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Areva, in 2013. It was estimated that
construction works on the four Generation III pressurized water reactors would
start in 2017, costing approximately 18 billion USD. According to a preliminary
agreement, Atmea would own 51 percent of the Sinop nuclear plant, Turkish state
utilities company EUAS would take 49 percent and Engie would operate it. On
paper, everything seemed fine, yet ended in an all-around fiasco.
The root cause of its cancellation, officially announced in December 2018,
was cost inflation. The 18 billion USD cost estimate spiraled up to 44 billion
USD due to the necessity to implement stricter post-Fukushima safety standards
– despite regular insistences by Ankara to keep the cost level at its initial
level. The deal breakoff led to a nightmarish result for Japanese nuclear
companies – after the retraction of a nuclear project in Taiwan (2014) and
Vietnam (2016), followed by the calling off of Sinop and Anglesey in Wales
(this January), Japan has currently no active nuclear plant construction
abroad, pretty much leaving the global nuclear market to the Russians and
What is the difference between the two projects that made Akkuyu feasible
and has rendered Sinop unattainable? Most importantly, in case of the former,
the entirety of financial risks arising from any appreciation of the project
lies entirely on Rosatom, a state company whose former CEO is now First Deputy
Chief of Staff of the Russian Presidential Administration. Even an appreciation
of 5-6 billion USD (initially Akkuyu was estimated to cost 15.8 billion USD,
its current price tag hovers around 22 billion USD) is tolerable under such
circumstances. Not only did Sinop depend on the cooperation of the French and
Japanese, it also presupposed Turkish financial involvement in the project.
Secondly, whilst Akkuyu remained quite high on the agenda of Turkey-Russia
political summits, Sinop did not receive the same kind of political backing.
A good example of why political backing matters is the ownership structure
of Akkuyu. Similarly as with Sinop, it was by no means easy finding Turkish
counterparts for the project. It was expected that Turkey would be represented
by a consortium consisting of three private companies, mostly known for their
dealings in the construction business – Cengiz Holding, Kolin Insaat and Kalyon
Insaat. Yet when all three companies quit the project in February 2018 (i.e. 2
months before the start of construction), Akkuyu did not ground to a halt.
Instead, negotiations were initiated between the Turkish state-owned electric
power holding EUAS to buy into the project, potentially even aiming for a 49
percent stake. It would be quite incredible if this was not the result of a
political agreement in the background.
The Sinop nuclear plant setback did not stop Turkey from dreaming big.
Akkuyu would supply “only” 10 percent of the nation’s energy demand, indicating
more is needed to rid Turkey of its environment-polluting coal dependence. Last
year President Erdo?an announced Turkey would build a third nuclear plant – the
location is rumoured to be the Thrace region northwest of Istanbul, close to
the Bulgarian border. Even though there is still no clarity on who would lead
the project, however, Energy Minister Fatih Donmez hinted that Ankara would
cooperate with China on the project.
Staff writer, Al Arabiya EnglishTuesday, 8 January 2019
Turkey’s military agreement with Qatar is full of
loopholes and vague terms that appear to have been deliberately inserted,
according to a report by the Nordic
Monitor, a Sweden-based monitoring site.
The report by
Abdullah Bozkurt, reveals that the bilateral agreement would allow Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to use Turkish air, land and naval assets to
promote his own ideological and personal interests in the Gulf and beyond by
using the hard power of the NATO military alliance’s second largest army.
“If not checked,
the agreement carries huge risks of escalation of Turkey’s involvement in
potential conflicts that may have nothing to do with protecting or promoting
Turkey’s national interests. This further confirms the view that the vagueness
in the agreement provisions were deliberate and systematic to allow Erdogan to
use them as he sees fit,” writes Bozkurt.
The agreement goes
beyond mere training and joint exercises and also incorporates “operations,”
which may very well suggest combat missions for Turkish troops.
According to the
report in the Nordic Monitor, “The agreement was rushed through the
cumbersome and slow-moving process in the Turkish Parliament in 2017 when
Turkey wanted to send a message to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and
other Arab states that had picked a fight with Qatar, Erdogan’s sweetheart
4 of the “Implementation Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of
Turkey and the Government of the State of Qatar on Deployment of Turkish Forces
into Territory of Qatar,” which was signed on April 28, 2016 in Doha, includes
the undefined phrase “any other missions” for the deployment of Turkish troops.
This means Erdoğan can also bypass the Turkish Parliament for authorization of
overseas missions, using the vague definition to fit his whims and would not
need to obtain the advance approval from Parliament that is required for the
deployment of Turkish troops abroad according to the Turkish Constitution.
The full text of
this provision in the agreement reads as follows: “The main mission of the unit
is to support enhancement of defense capabilities of Qatar through
joint/combined exercises and training, and subject to approval by both parties,
execute training/exercises with other nations’ armed forces and contribute to
the counter-terrorism and international peace support operations and any other
missions mutually agreed upon by written consent of both parties.”
in the agreement
in the agreement, which was incorporated into Turkish law on June 9, 2017, is
that it does not say how long Turkish troops will remain in Qatar. Article 1 of
the agreement on the scope and the purpose of the agreement say that the deal
regulates “the long term, as well as temporary, presence and activities of
Turkish Armed Forces.”
What “the long
term” prospect is and who defines the duration of the commitment for Turkish
troops and on what criteria are not specified in the agreement. Article 17
specifies the duration of the agreement to be 10 years with automatic renewals
for an additional term of five years for each extension. Whether that term
applies to the presence of troops remains an open question.
The agreement does
not specify force level or the number of troops. Article 2 states that Turkey
will send air, land and naval assets to Qatar without setting any number or
level of the forces. Although section two of this article states that “the
deployment of the forces shall be in accordance with the plan to be accepted by
the Parties,” the following section says Turkey will make a determination on
“the duration of the mission of personnel to be assigned.”
Turkey’s military agreement with Qatar does not foresee a third-party dispute
settlement mechanism, either. Article 16 of the agreement says disputes “shall
be resolved by negotiation between the Parties, without referring to the
jurisdiction of any third party, establishment, or national or international
agreement is actually a follow-up of the “framework” military cooperation
agreement that was signed by the two countries on December 19, 2014, and
entered into force on June 15, 2015. In contrast to the framework deal, the
implementation agreement gives detailed clues as to what Turkey and Qatar hope
to accomplish in the Gulf.
ties with Qatar to be strategic, and Turkey’s Erdogan and Qatar’s Emir Sheikh
Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in 2014 set up a High-Level Strategic Council (HLSC),
an intergovernmental mechanism that brings together most ministers at summits
led by the heads of state and government.
Once upon a time, a Turkish sultan in situ was good news, such as those, for
example, during the expulsion from Spain in 1492. The Sultan Bayezid II, who
ruled 1481-1512, sent ships to Grenada to save the dispossessed Jews and invite
them to live across the Ottoman Empire. Your loss, Bayezid tolds those who
signed the deportation order, is our gain. And gain they did. The Jews were not
only loyal, but also helped to develop the economy and spiritual life in every
place they reached across the empire.
Life was not always good for the Jews under the Ottomans and/or the Turks.
But what is very clear is that the current Sultan, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is an
impudent anti-Semite. His repeated statements make it clear that his role model
is former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and not sultans of yore who
treated the Jews fairly. This attitude of Erdogan’s did not start today, or
even with the 2010 Mavi Marmara crisis, when IDF troops and Turkish activists
clashed on board a Gaza-bound boat with deadly results. When he was younger,
Erdogan wrote a play called “Mas-Kom-Ya”, which depicts a conspiracy by the
Freemasons, the Communists, and the Jews.
Since 1984, Turkey has destroyed 3,000 Kurdish villages, implemented mass
transfer of the local population and caused a “Kurdish Nakba” of two million
people who became refugees in their own country. During this orchestrated war
on the Kurdish people, there have been massacres during which 30,000 people
were killed. Even if Israel made every effort, it could not scratch the surface
of the horrors perpetrated by the Turks, not those of recent decades and
certainly not those of the last century, including the genocide committed by
the Turks against the Armenians, and the atrocities committed in the framework
of the expulsion of Christians at the end of the First World War.
Erdogan himself is responsible for several massacres committed in recent
years. For example, his soldiers raided the city of Cizre, in
the northeast of the country, in February 2016. Hundreds of civilians hid in
three basements, but it did not help them as Erdogan’s soldiers massacred them
mercilessly. A total of 178 people were killed, most of them innocent
And this is one of many events. The list of crimes is long, but the world
barely pays heed with them, because the guiding principle is all too familiar:
As far as Muslims massacring Muslims is concerned – the world is silent.
Muslims are treated like stupid children, and allowed to get away with much.
The unfortunate Muslims on the receiving end complain bitterly about this
treatment, which is seen as a license to commit atrocities.
Erdogan has managed to raise this principle to new heights. He complains
about Israel, which is fighting jihad, while he also supports this jihad; he
has erased the gap (although it is doubtful this gap even exists) between
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism; he commits massacres against his own people,
while accusing Israel of massacring the Palestinians.
Erdogan’s anti-Semitic campaign continues with full force. Last year,
Turkish TV aired an anti-Semitic series that included allegations of plots that
were allegedly the brainchild the Jew Theodor Herzl, which were “inspired by
real historical facts.” This was not the first antisemitic series. In Turkey,
One cannot easily dismmiss Erdogan, who in the past voiced opposition to
Bashar Assad’s continued rule in Syria, but soon joined the axis of evil that
includes Iran and Hezbollah. There are those who argue that Turkey’s economic
interests will lead to restraint, but that’s a mistake. History proves that
leaders of Erdogan’s ilk will pick ideological principles, especially those
rooted in hatred, over national interests. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party
is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, whose founder, Hassan al-Banna, penned an
article on the importance of the “industry of death.” That’s the idea, those
are the principles that Erdogan follows.
It is important to note that the president of Turkey is not the enemy of
Israel, he is the enemy of the free world. Europe already detests him;
countries such as the Netherlands and Germany refused entry to ministers from
his party. But this did not stop Erdogan from becoming the contractor for the
project to stop the flow of refugees, for which he gets billions. This helps in
the short term, but in the long run, Europe is cultivating a monster who is
becoming increasingly racist and anti-Semitic.
Monsters like this must be stopped when they are small and toothless. But
Europe has forgotten everything and learned nothing. And the monster continues
In France, people who feel left
behind by a globalizing world have spent the last few weeks marching and
rioting to protest a government they call elitist and out of touch. The
government, whose initial dismissiveness seemed to confirm their suspicions,
was finally forced to change tack. Britain is still shuddering from a
referendum that its government called to muzzle naysayers, only to see those
naysayers win the day. Now, as politicians go through awkward contortions to
deliver on that vote, the government is on the verge of collapse.
in the Oval Office. Shouting at the Houses of Parliament. Rioting on the
Champs-Elysees. It’s a chaotic moment for the countries that have long
underpinned the established global order, a time of instability for the balance
of power that has reigned for decades.
NTEB was one of the very first news publishers to boldly declare that Donald
Trump would be the next president of the United States,
and we took tons of heat from Christians and non-Christians alike. I was
personally called every name in the book, readership of the site fell off by
50%, revenues plummeted. Then, trusting that the Lord was leading, we doubled
“For thus saith the LORD
of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens,
and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all
nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house
with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.”
Haggai 2:6,7 (KJV)
In December of 2016, I wrote an article updating earlier statements I had made about
how a Trump presidency, ordained by God, would trigger a ‘global shaking’
around the the world. Everything that has so far transpired, from the Trump
Revolution in 2016 to the Yellow
Vest protests happening right now in France, prove that to be
Corporate Globalism has many names and comes in many forms depending on where
you live. There is a ‘deep state‘ in every government in all 196
member states in the United Nations, and they all work towards the same goal
that has the same end. But the election of Donald Trump has triggered events
that two years later are only intensifying and growing stronger.
That New World Order, ordained and blessed by President George H.W. Bush on September
11, 1991, and reaffirmed by 2 term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and
Barack Obama, is under tremendous pressure and in danger of coming apart at the
seams. Look anywhere you like – America, England, France, Sweden, Brasil,
Mexico – the Trump Effect is igniting change on an unprecedented scale. People
are rejecting globalism, and governments are caving into the pressure.
But the New World Order doesn’t die quickly or easily, so you better buckle up. The
chaos is only just getting started.
In democracies’ political chaos, a new model emerges
FROM THE AP: Across the world, people are questioning truths they had
long held to be self-evident, and they are dismissing some of them as fake
news. They are replacing traditions they had long seen as immutable with haphazard
In France, people who feel left
behind by a globalizing world have spent the last few weeks marching and
rioting to protest a government they call elitist and out of touch. The
government, whose initial dismissiveness seemed to confirm their suspicions,
was finally forced to change tack.
Britain is still shuddering from a referendum that its government called to muzzle
naysayers, only to see those naysayers win the day. Now, as politicians go
through awkward contortions to deliver on that vote, the government is on the
verge of collapse.
And in the United States, a president who some accuse of upending ideals that the
nation holds dear is aggressively abandoning protocol and customs that have
prevailed through a dozen of his predecessors. His core followers are thrilled;
many others are getting vertigo.
What’s more, these events are
playing out not only in the lands of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, of the
Magna Carta and of the Declaration of Independence, but across the Western
It’s a similar narrative in each
place: People outside the centers of power are rejecting political elites they
feel take them for granted, and backing new movements that eschew the rules and
that often play to their basest thoughts.
To be clear, this isn’t a weakening
of democracy. In a way, it’s the opposite.
PUBLISHED: 19:17, Thu, Nov 15, 2018 | UPDATED: 19:17, Thu, Nov 15, 2018
Turkey could face further sanctions over its purchase of the Russian made S-400 missile system (Image: GETTY IMAGES)
The United States has repeatedly warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan not to go ahead with a purchase of the S-400 surface-to-air missile platform amid concerns it could be used to target the new F-35 stealth fighter. But it emerged in September that Turkey had begun work on a launch site to accommodate the Russian-made weaponry. Turkey insists the missiles are not a threat to American jets, but US officials are “not optimistic” over Ankara’s assurances, according to Turkish news agency Anadolu.
But the source added negotiations between Washington and Ankara over the issue are “continuing”.
The Russian-made S-400 can target multiple aerial targets within its 250 mile range (Image: GETTY IMAGES)
The S-400 reportedly poses a ‘threat’ to the US-made F-35 jets (Image: GETTY IMAGES)
The S-400 is touted as one of the most advanced systems in the world and is capable of engaging multiple aerial targets within its 250 mile range.
It is designed to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the sky before they reach their target and can also target stealth warplanes – including the new F-35 fighter.
Turkey is due to receive two F-35s in the near future ahead of a further order which will eventually see the country take delivery of 100 of the high-tech jets.
But experts have warned the planes, combined with the S-400 missile system, could allow Russia to analyse the stealth technology fitted to the plane.
Writing in the National Interest, defence expert Sebastien Roblin said: “In short, the Pentagon sees the combination of S-400 batteries and F-35 fighters as one that may give Russia a chance to closely study the stealth jet, and tailor their air defences to defeat it.”
Trump reveals that Turkey released Pastor Andrew Brunson
Russia said Turkey’s S-400 missiles will be delivered in 2019 (Image: GETTY IMAGES)
NATO countries have also expressed concerns over Turkey’s S-400 purchase because it is incompatible with equipment used by the Western alliance.
Relations between Ankara have Washington improved slightly in recent weeks following the release of American pastor Andrew Brunson who was being held in Turkey on terrorism charges.
President Donald Trump had slapped Turkey with tough sanctions after a deal he struck with President Erdogan to secure Mr Brunson’s release fell through.
But following the pastor’s release last month, Mr Trump signalled a thawing of relations could be possible, tweeting the move “will lead to good, perhaps great, relations between the United States & Turkey!”
However the ongoing row over the S-400 threatens recent progress between the two nations.
Russia has previously said it plans to deliver the new missiles in 2019.
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 959, September 26, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A list of 26 predominantly Muslim countries considered sensitive by China reflects Chinese concerns that they could reinforce religious sentiment among the People’s Republic’s Turkic Muslim population with potentially far-reaching consequences if the Islamic world were to take it to task for its crackdown in Xinjiang, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.
A list of 26 predominantly Muslim countries considered sensitive by China, which was compiled by Human Rights Watch as part of a just published report on the crackdown in China’s strategic northwestern province, details the rollout of the world’s most intrusive, 21st-century surveillance state as well as an attempt to re-educate a population of 10 million. That population includes primarily Uighurs, an ethnically Turkic Muslim group, as well as Muslims of Central Asian origin.
The re-education is designed to reshape the population’s religious beliefs so that they adopt an interpretation of Islam that is in line with the Chinese Communist Party’s precepts rather than prescriptions of Islamic holy texts in a bid to counter Turkic Muslim nationalist, ethnic, or religious aspirations as well as political violence.
China’s crackdown, according to a plan developed by the Baluntai Town government in north-central Xinjiang, involves targeting, among others, Turkic Muslims who remain in contact with family and friends abroad, people who have stayed abroad “too long,” and those who have, independently and without state permission, organized Hajj pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia. China is particularly concerned about Uighur contact with Muslim countries.
Human Rights Watch quoted Inzhu, a 50-year-old mother, who lives in an unidentified country, as saying, “It was 2 a.m. and my daughters [in a foreign country] were chatting with their father [in Xinjiang] on the phone. You know, they’re daddy’s girls and they were telling him all their secrets … when suddenly my daughters ran in to tell me, ‘The authorities are taking away daddy!’”
For China, the Muslim world’s silence constitutes a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Beijing’s campaign in Xinjiang is effectively enabled by this silence, which is driven primarily by the desire of governments, many of which are deeply indebted to China, to preserve economic relations. It allows it to largely ignore criticism by Western nations and human rights groups as well as the Uighur Diaspora.
On the other hand, the silence potentially gives Muslim countries a degree of leverage. Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Muhammad seemingly exploited that leverage with China treading carefully in the face of an anti-Chinese election campaign that returned the 93-year old to office in May. Maharthir subsequently suspended US$22 billion of Chinese-backed Belt and Road-related infrastructure projects.
This leverage could also factor in the intention of financially troubled Pakistan to review or renegotiate agreements related to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel in the Belt and Road initiative and at US$50 billion plus, its single largest country investment.
The risk for China is that mushrooming publicity about its crackdown in Xinjiang, which includes pressure on Uighurs abroad to return to the Chinese province or risk incarceration – a push that has led countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Malaysia to extradite Uighurs to China – will make it increasingly difficult for Muslim countries to remain silent.
The risk is also that the crackdown could have a boomerang effect, fueling radicalization at home as well as abroad. A studyquoted in The New York Times by Qiu Yuanyuan, a scholar at the Xinjiang Party School, where officials are trained, warned that “recklessly setting quantitative goals for transformation through education has been erroneously used … The targeting is imprecise, and the scope has been expanding.”
The risks are enhanced by black swans such as a recent court case in Kazakhstan that forced the government in Astana to walk a fine line between avoiding friction with China and shielding itself from accusations that it is not standing up for the rights and safety of Kazakh nationals.
Kazakhs were taken aback when 41-year-old Sayragul Sauytbay, a Chinese national of Kazakh descent, testified in an open Kazakh court that she had been employed in a Chinese re-education camp for Kazakhs only that had 2,500 inmates. She said she was aware of two more camps reserved for Kazakhs.
Ms. Sauytbay was standing trial for entering Kazakhstan illegally. She said she had escaped to Kazakhstan after being told by Chinese authorities that she would never be allowed to rejoin her family because of her knowledge of the camps. Ms. Sauytbay was given a six-month suspended sentence and allowed to stay in the country where her recently naturalized husband and children reside.
The inclusion of ethnic Kazakhs, a community in China of 1.25 million people, in the crackdown sparked angry denunciations in Kazakhstan’s parliament. “There should be talks taking place with the Chinese delegates. Every delegation that goes there should be bringing this topic up … The key issue is that of the human rights of ethnic Kazakhs in any country of the world being respected,” said Kunaysh Sultanov, a member of parliament and former deputy prime minister and ambassador to China.
Beyond economic leverage, China has so far benefited from the fact that Muslim politicians and leaders see more political mileage in pushing causes like the Palestinians rather than those that have not been in the Islamic world’s public eye.
Revelation 1:3 "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near".
Watchman for Christ