Category: Europe

Russia hosts the World Youth Festival, the largest event in the world

Despite the politically dictated solution by the Western countries to exclude Russian universities from world rankings Moscow is holding a global forum – the World Youth Festival, which starts from March 1 to March 7, 2024 on the innovative Federal Territory of Sirius near Sochi. The largest youth event in the world, targeted international youth cooperation, will bring together 20 thousand Russian and foreign young leaders in business, media, international cooperation, culture, science, education, volunteering and charity, sports, and various fields of activity. life, as well as teenagers representing various children’s organizations and associations.

To date, representatives from 155 countries have applied to participate in the event.

This event once again proves Russia’s openness to the world, and instilling its independence and self-sufficiency, Russia cannot be isolated from the rest of the world.

Russia is a country where talented and ambitious young people from different countries can reveal their scientific potential and realize themselves by receiving an education at one of the best Russian universities.

The best universities in Russia occupy positions in the most prestigious world rankings and offer the level of training of specialists in various fields: from IT technologies to medicine and creative specialties. Educational programs at Russian universities combine the best scientific traditions and modern approaches to teaching with access to high-tech research laboratories. Russian universities offer not only a wide range of educational programs, but also the opportunity to continue scientific activities and find interesting work in Russia; and also travel across the vast territory of the country.

In 2019, according to the “Best Countries to Start a Career” report published by the American platform U.S. News, Russia rose three positions and took first place in the ranking. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, more than half of Russians aged 25 to 34 have completed higher education, which ensures a competitive job market. Although Moscow remains conservative when it comes to international business, it has promoted itself as a startup hub. The Skolkovo Innovation Center hosts hundreds of startups and provides grants of up to $10 million. At the same time, the report shows that the European countries, such as France and Spain, as well as many countries in Southeast Asia, which are experiencing crisis periods in youth employment, are not creating new jobs as quickly as required.

The sanctions policy of Western countries once again has caused the split in the global community: while a number of countries reconciled themselves and took a solid position on sanctions, the majority of countries in the world did not join this agenda. On the contrary, the recent expansion of BRICS, with new members such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries, proves the global course towards an anti-Western monopoly and the search for new economic opportunities by key players in the Middle East and Africa. It is likely that new organizations will appear in the future interested in strengthening regional positions and opposing Western hegemony. No surprise that Russia would be initiating such associations as the country demonstrates its independent position and openness to the world.

February 19, 2024
The West loves to hate Russia, and here’s why

Today the West is obsessed with Russia: nearly half of Americans believe Moscow rigged the 2016 US presidential election; many Europeans suspect that the Kremlin shapes public opinion in their countries; and some mainstream Western media insist that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most powerful political leader in the world. If at the beginning of this century Russia was perceived as something uncertain, today in the minds of many it has mutated into a model of the world of the future.

Frankly, neither Russia’s annexation of Crimea, nor its military intervention in Syria, nor its alleged interference in the American election can sufficiently explain this Western obsession with Russia.

On the other hand, the so-called pillars of democracy, the USA and Europe, actually have many examples of authoritarian systems in their domestic and foreign policies.

Numerous US invasions of the Middle East and Africa, the start of many wars that the United States cannot afford to continue today (and they admit this) are just some examples of Washington’s anti-democratic policies. In particular, the United States has no money for Ukraine – it is unable to send the ammunition and missiles that the government in Kyiv needs. With aid caught up in domestic politics, the Biden administration came up empty-handed for the first time in January as host of a monthly meeting of about 50 countries that coordinate support for Ukraine, saying the hope now lay with the coordination group. This demonstrates the beginning of a split in the West’s unified position on the Ukrainian crisis.

Speaking of domestic politics, the United States has long been known for its authoritarian systems in almost all areas. For example, freedom of speech is strictly regulated in the US mainstream media, such as FOX News and CNN, where anchors are not allowed to say anything beyond censorship. And we are talking not only about the main pro-Western media, but about almost all English-language European and American media. Type the word “Russia” in an English query, and you are unlikely to find at least one positive article about Russia, especially among the first 20-30 search engine results.

Another example is corporate culture. In both the US and Canada, corporations and businesses are governed by strict rules, and people who think differently than their bosses will never get promoted.

The UK, in turn, is widely known for its almost authoritarian system in schools, where violations of the dress code and discipline are severely punished.

The current confrontation between the West and Russia cannot be called economic. The reason has to do with the country’s political culture. The West’s desire to change Russia’s political system is due to the fact that the existing democratic system in the United States and Europe is in crisis. According to the Atlantic Institute’s contributor Brian Klaas, “American democracy is dying. There are plenty of medicines that would cure it. Unfortunately, our political dysfunction means we’re choosing not to use them, and as time passes, fewer treatments become available to us, even though the disease is becoming terminal. No major prodemocracy reforms have passed Congress. No key political figures who tried to overturn an American election have faced real accountability. The president who orchestrated the greatest threat to our democracy in modern times is free to run for reelection, and may well return to office…”

Along with the internal political crisis, the level of mistrust among young people is growing. Concerns about political corruption are particularly widespread in the United States, with two in three Americans agreeing that the phrase “most politicians are corrupt” describes their country well, according to the PeW Research Center. Almost half say the same in France and the UK. Young people in particular tend to view politicians as corrupt.

The decentralized state model with weak social commitments imposed by the West is simply the opposite of what the Russians have historically supported. Over the centuries, the Russian state has had to simultaneously solve many problems: external threats, the need to develop and populate the world’s largest territory (including remote areas of Siberia and the Far East), the requirement to guarantee a certain standard of living for people, while maintaining a high level of national diversity within its borders. Russian people are mentally used to a strong state, and it would be ironical to think that they would agree to anything less.

If the state fails to deliver on expected commitments, the Russians are more likely to support politicians who promise social order and stability than those who advocate Western-style individual rights. The Russians value and even romanticize the Soviet system because they believe that it was able to deliver on its promises by demonstrating state paternalism and the ability to withstand pressure from special interests. Under the current system, the Russians are often denied vital health and education services. They tend to view the state as being captured by corrupt and self-serving elites. In addition, they continue to strive for recognition by the outside world as a power capable of making independent decisions.

Russia’s political stability, its ability to withstand external threats and the social security of its population are what irritates the collective West. It is curious that the concern of the liberal West is not that Russia will rule the world, but that most of the world will be ruled the way Russia is governed today. Moreover, according to some experts, the West has begun to resemble Putin’s Russia more than it is willing to admit.

February 8, 2024
When Armenia Occupied Azerbaijani Lands Josep Borrell Was Very Silent…

By Azer HASRET

During his press remarks after the Foreign Affairs Council the High Representative on Foreign Affairs of the European Union Josep Borrell voiced baseless and unjustified claims regarding Azerbaijan. He noted that Azerbaijan has territorial claims against Armenia. He had even stressed that the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev voiced these claims.

To see the issue deeper let’s read through what was said by Mr. Borrell on Jan 22, 2024, during his press remarks.

“…we agreed that Azerbaijan needs to return to substantive peace and normalization talks with Armenia. The latest territorial claims by President [of Azerbaijan, Ilham] Aliyev are very concerning. And any violation of Armenia’s territorial integrity will be unacceptable and will have severe consequences for our relations with Azerbaijan.”

As is seen Mr. Borrell is talking about President Aliyev’s territorial claims against Armenia. But as a citizen of Azerbaijan, plus as a person closely following political developments not only within, but outside of Azerbaijan I can strongly oppose these claims by Mr. Borrell and assure that President Aliyev never voiced territorial claims against Armenia. What I know the President continuously states that Azerbaijan has no intention to occupy any piece of territory of any other country including Armenia.

This is obvious and even Mr. Borrell has an opportunity to contact Mr. Aliyev and ask him if he has territorial claims against Armenia. But as we see Mr. Borrell didn’t dare to do this and check the truthfulness of the claims spread by some propaganda centers. He made himself a tool of propaganda for those centers. Unfortunately…

Now we’ll see which country has the territorial claims against its neighbor. That is Armenia, not Azerbaijan having territorial claims. And we have quite enough evidence to prove this.

Let’s read through The Constitution of Armenia. Just in its Preamble, we can see that Armenia has territorial claims against Azerbaijan! And this is the major soul of that Constitution thus making this country an aggressor.

To see the details let’s read through the mentioned Preamble:

“The Armenian People, accepting as a basis the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and pan-national aspirations enshrined in the Declaration on the Independence of Armenia, having fulfilled the sacred behest of its freedom-loving ancestors to restore the sovereign state, dedicated to the strengthening and prosperity of the fatherland, with the aim of ensuring the freedom, general well-being, and civic solidarity of the generations, and affirming its commitment to universal values, adopts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia”.

One who doesn’t know the issue well would say that where is the territorial claim here? We’ll explain.

The Preamble is quoting The Declaration on the Independence of Armenia. And very this document openly expresses territorial claims against Azerbaijan!

Let’s see this time the mentioned Declaration:

“The Supreme Council of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

Expressing the united will of the Armenian people;

…Based on the December 1, 1989, joint decision of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Artsakh National Council on the “Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Region of Karabakh”;..

Declares

The beginning of the process of establishing of independent statehood positioning the question of the creation of a democratic society based on the rule of law;..”

This Declaration was adopted on August 23, 1990, and is taken as a basis for The Constitution of Armenia. Mr. Borrell before accusing Azerbaijan of territorial claims against Armenia could look through this Constitution and see the real territorial claimers…

And this is not even the last evidence showing Armenia’s territorial claims against its neighbors. The Constitution of Armenia has one more piece of evidence, this time against Türkiye.

Let’s see again The Constitution:

Article 21. The Symbols of the Republic of Armenia

…The coat of arms of the Republic of Armenia shall depict, in the center on a shield, Mount Ararat with Noah’s ark and the coats of arms of the four kingdoms of historical Armenia…

Thus, once again a person with no imagination about the region would see nothing here. But if look deeper one can see that Armenia has territorial claims against Türkiye. As we know the mount which Armenia calls “Ararat” is a Mount Aghri based in the territory of Türkiye. Why would a country depict a natural object of another country on its national symbol? Where is the logic?

This is one more piece of evidence proving that Armenia has territorial claims against at least two of its neighbors: Azerbaijan and Türkiye. But Mr. Borrell is accusing Azerbaijan of “having territorial claims against Armenia”…

Going through this evidence we can once more see that the EU High Representative Josep Borrell is voluntarily acting as part of the Armenian propaganda machine. But we here in Azerbaijan and other countries of the region were seeing the European Union and its representatives as those who could guarantee more freedom, justice, and well-being for our people…

P.S. Armenia kept under its occupation about 20 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan for more than 28 years. This very Mr. Borrell never talked about Armenia’s obvious occupation while the evidence was very clear. But now he is accusing Azerbaijan for having territorial claims against Azerbaijan while he has no single evidence to prove this…

January 25, 2024
Sarbanes Letter to President Biden

Sarbanes, Hellenic Caucus Leaders Urge President Biden to Formally Invite the President of Cyprus to the White House to Mark 50th Anniversary of Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

January 18, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD) joined Congressional Hellenic Caucus co-chairs Chris Pappas (D-NH) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and vice co-chairs Dina Titus (D-NV) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) in sending a letter to President Biden requesting he observe the 50^th anniversary of Turkey’s invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus by formally inviting Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides to the White House and taking other measures to strengthen the strategic partnership between the United States and Cyprus.

Read the full letter linked here and below:

Dear President Biden:

This year we mark the 50^th observance of Turkey’s brutal invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. From your earliest days in the Senate, few elected officials have matched your understanding of this unforgiving tragedy, and even fewer have equaled your level of unwavering support for reunification of the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

As members of the Congressional Hellenic Caucus, we urge your administration to mark this sober year of remembrance with meaningful actions that will materially elevate the United States’ relationship with one of our most reliable strategic partners. We agree with your recent statement that American leadership is what holds the world together, that American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. Affirming our bond with key partners — in this case, the Republic of Cyprus — is critical to projecting American values and bolstering international collaboration on the world’s most pressing challenges.

On July 20, 1974, Turkish forces descended upon Cypriot towns and villages, sending their rightful inhabitants fleeing for their lives. Since that time, Cypriots have endured a massive Turkish occupation in an ongoing affront to their sovereignty and democratic liberties. Your observation that we know that our allies and, maybe most importantly, our adversaries and competitors, are watching could not be more applicable than to Turkey’s actions in Cyprus.

In 2014, you became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Cyprus since then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1962. During that visit, you recognized Cyprus’ important role as an ally, observing: “Cyprus can be a growing force for peace, prosperity and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean and that would benefit the world.” Almost a decade later, Cyprus has consistently proven to be the stabilizing and peaceful force in the region you rightly predicted, having aligned its policies with U.S. interests and collaborated with the larger Eastern Mediterranean region. Cyprus has worked to combat Russian money laundering, captured tons of Iranian explosives and shown itself to be a compassionate and reliable partner by treating wounded U.S. Marines prevented from receiving care at the U.S. Incirlik Base in Turkey. Most recently, in response to Hamas’ brutal attack on Israeli civilians, Cyprus rescued thousands of innocent Americans and others fleeing from Israel and is currently leading efforts to establish a humanitarian aid corridor to Gaza. Beyond this demonstrated vital partnership, our nations have found key areas of collaboration through the 3+1 Eastern Mediterranean Cooperation Framework, including its development of CYCLOPS, a facility that hosts joint training on maritime and border security, counterterrorism and cybersecurity between the U.S., Cyprus and other regional allies.

It is with this convincing record of collaboration in mind that we propose your consideration of several key actions that will signal America’s appreciation of Cyprus’ vital role and also act to further strengthen the U.S.-Cypriot strategic partnership. This partnership has already catalyzed greater cooperation, innovation and security amongst our friends and allies in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

First, we urge you to formally welcome Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides to the White House. A formal state visit will shine a powerful light on the peace building that remains to be done in Cyprus and will demonstrate America’s broad interest in peaceful conflict resolution across the globe. It will be an important statement to allies under threat of authoritarian control that the United States is a resolute world leader committed to the preservation and promotion of democratic liberties. You have done more than any American President in recent memory to raise the alarm about the threats to democracy at home and abroad. Demonstrating solidarity with the Republic of Cyprus, a key partner in that continuing struggle, will reaffirm your unwavering commitment to strengthening democratic principles at this critical moment.

Second, we ask that you leverage the power of the 3+1 Framework to further the shared strategic interests of the United States and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean region by expeditiously convening a 3+1 Foreign Ministerial meeting. During a time of rising global tensions, it is more important than ever to promote regional stability and enhance collaboration among key partner nations on mutual economic and political goals by facilitating these regional talks.

Third, we applaud initial steps to add Cyprus to the Visa Waiver Program alongside many of its European Union neighbors. This Program serves to strengthen people-to-people ties between nations and the inclusion of Cyprus is the right policy. We urge a smooth and efficient admission of Cyprus into the Program once the necessary security steps are completed by your administration.

Finally, we wish to thank you for fully lifting the arms embargo on Cyprus through 2024. This decision is a testament to the reforms Cyprus has implemented consistent with the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019, to thwart Russian influence and money laundering. While we believe this is an important first step in recognition of Cyprus’ ongoing commitment to these reforms, we urge you to extend this lifting of the arms embargo beyond a one-year time frame which will allow for advanced planning and ensure interoperability with allies.

Your long-standing record of support for the U.S.- Cyprus relationship is deeply appreciated by all who have worked over these last five decades to achieve justice for the Cypriot people. We know that you feel the gravity of this moment as acutely as we do and ask you to mark this sober occasion with concrete, meaningful actions that can advance a just solution in Cyprus.

Sincerely,

Chris Pappas, Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

Gus Bilirakis, Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

Dina Titus, Vice Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

Nicole Malliotakis, Vice Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

John P. Sarbanes, Member, Hellenic Caucus

January 24, 2024
Russia could attack the West ???

That’s what it’s all about:

According to the Bild newspaper, the German Bundeswehr is studying scenarios in which Russia could attack the West bevor the summer. The situation could escalate in the coming winter, the document continues.

In the summer of 2025, NATO could finally deploy 300,000 troops to Ukraine’s eastern flank. While Ukraine is aiming for a summit at the highest level on its peace plan, Russian President Vladimir Putin probably has other intentions: According to a training plan of the German Defense Ministry, the Kremlin chief could prepare a hybrid attack on NATO as early as next winter. This is reported by the “Bild” newspaper.

In the secret report, the German Defense Ministry outlines in detail a possible “path to conflict” between Russia and the Western defense alliance. Month after month, both Russian and Western actions are described. Among other things, the Bundeswehr expects the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers and an imminent outbreak of war in the summer of 2025, according to the “Bild”. Large-scale Russian manoeuvres from September Russia wants to call up another 200,000 men into the army soon to launch a new offensive against Ukraine in the spring.

In the summer months, Russia would then begin increasingly open attacks on the West – including through severe cyberattacks. The large-scale “Zapad 2024” manoeuvre with 50,000 troops is scheduled to start in western Russia and Belarus in September.

At the end of the year, there would be a Russian invasion of areas of eastern Ukraine, whereupon NATO is to deploy around 300,000 soldiers to Ukraine’s eastern flank on the so-called “Day X” in the summer of 2025. Different scenarios considered The Ministry of Defense declined to comment on the information.

Only this much: “Basically, I can tell you that the consideration of different scenarios – even if they are extremely unlikely – is part of everyday military business, especially in training,” a spokesman for the ministry told Bild. Just last week, Swedish security experts warned of the danger of war with Russia. “Many have said it before me, but let me say it by virtue of my office: there could be a war in Sweden,” said Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Sweden’s Minister of Civil Protection.

Everyone must prepare for the worst-case scenario, such as a war with Russia, before it is too late, Bohlin said.

January 18, 2024
Did Britain ever rule over Turkey?

Did Britain ever rule over Turkey? If not, why did Great Britain not take over Anatolia during World War I considering that Germany was allied with the Ottomans at that time?

No, Britain did not rule over Turkey. During World War I, although Germany was allied with the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), Great Britain did not take over Anatolia for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, it is important to understand the geopolitical landscape of the time. The Ottoman Empire, once a powerful force in the region, was in decline in the early 20th century. However, it still held strategic importance due to its control of key trade routes, particularly the Suez Canal, which connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and provided a vital shortcut to India, Britain’s prized colony.

Britain, being aware of the Ottoman Empire’s strategic significance, pursued a policy of maintaining the status quo rather than outright annexation. This approach aimed to preserve stability in the region and protect British interests without jeopardizing delicate alliances and triggering further conflicts.

Additionally, Britain had other priorities during World War I. The war effort required substantial resources, both human and material, which were primarily allocated to fighting on the Western Front against Germany and Austria-Hungary. British forces were heavily engaged in Europe and the Middle East, including campaigns in Gallipoli and Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).

Moreover, the prospect of taking over Anatolia would have presented significant challenges for Britain. It would have required a massive military campaign and an occupation force to maintain control over the vast territory. With limited resources and stretched supply lines, such an endeavor would have been logistically challenging and potentially prolonged the war effort.

Another crucial factor to consider was the potential backlash from other major powers. Imperial Russia, a key ally of Britain at the time, had territorial ambitions in Anatolia and sought to expand its influence in the region. Any attempt by Britain to seize control of Anatolia would have likely provoked a confrontation with Russia, leading to further complications and potential conflicts.

Furthermore, the post-war settlement played a role in Britain’s decision-making process. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, aimed to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and divide its territories among various powers. However, this treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognized the independence of the Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This effectively marked the end of Britain’s ambitions to rule over Anatolia.

Patrick S

December 20, 2023