Could It Be More Obvious?

Hollande went to Putin and by all accounts, got want he wanted.

The parties in Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government exchanged insults at the weekend in an escalating clash over refugee policy that has left the German leader looking more vulnerable than at any time during her decade in power.

Divisions between her conservatives and the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) over benefits for refugees prompted coalition leaders to cancel a special cabinet meeting planned for Monday where they had hoped to agree measures to speed up the processing of asylum seekers.

But the biggest fight was within Merkel's own conservative ranks as members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) lined up to condemn their Bavarian sister party for humiliating the chancellor at a congress in Munich on Friday evening.

With Merkel standing next to him, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), openly criticised her for refusing to put a formal cap on the number of refugees entering Germany. He was cheered loudly by members of his party as Merkel stood fidgeting uncomfortably on the stage

Putin's real objectetive is the preservatiuon of Assad's rule

Even now, gazing back through the jaundiced lens of subsequent experience, Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign speech in Berlin still seems an extraordinary occasion. Tens of thousands of mostly young Germans gathered in the center of the city to listen to the American presidential candidate, in an atmosphere The Guardian described as “a pop festival, a summer gathering of peace, love—and loathing of George Bush.” Streets were closed for the occasion. Bands played to warm up the crowd.

When he spoke, Obama said just what the Germans, and so many other Europeans, wanted to hear. He reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to Europe, evoking the Berlin airlift and the fall of the Berlin Wall. He praised the virtues of “allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.” He listed a series of global problems and declared that “no one nation, no matter how large or how powerful, can defeat such challenges alone.” That one phrase—again, according to The Guardian’s gushing account—prompted long and hearty cheers.

Germany was not alone in its rapture. Soon after he was elected president, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize—simply, it seems, for the fact that he was not George W. Bush. With those kinds of absurd expectations surrounding his presidency, it was clearly impossible for Obama to avoid disappointing the Europeans. What is only surprising, in retrospect, is the speed with which he did so—and with which the Europeans disappointed him.
.
.
.
Instead, the many years of neglect of European defense—on the part of not only the Obama administration but also the Bush administration and the European political establishment—have taken their toll. Russian influence is now on the rise, and not only in the post-Soviet world. Russia supports, financially and otherwise, a wide range of anti-EU, anti-NATO far-right and far-left political parties in Europe, from France’s National Front and Austria’s Freedom Party to Hungary’s Jobbik and Greece’s Syriza. Sophisticated Russian disinformation now filters into mainstream media in many European countries. Russian efforts to undermine Ukraine continue; financial catastrophe, as well as more fighting, may follow. In the current atmosphere, Russia doesn’t need to invent Europe’s problems; it just needs to exacerbate them.

Right now, none of this is anybody’s priority: Europe is preoccupied with the Greek debt crisis, the coming British referendum on EU membership, and the wave of refugees crossing the Mediterranean in an effort to reach Europe. The United States has a major stake in all these crises. In particular, Greece’s travails are helping destabilize the Balkans. Russia is working hard to spread its influence there, most notably in Serbia, where Russian companies have invested heavily in the energy industry.

Yet the American role in the Greek drama has been mostly limited to friendly advice—the United States pushed for Europe to bail out Greece—which has generally been ignored, if even heard at all. In any case, the United States was always going to have limited influence over the far-left Syriza government, and Congress would surely have resisted major expenditures on Greece, which is generally seen as Europe’s problem.

It is possible, of course, that time is on the side of the Western alliance. The Russian economy is in decline, thanks largely to low oil prices rather than the sanctions. Deterrence and containment may well protect Europe, as they have in the past, until Russian policy or Russian leadership changes once again. The great unknown is Putin himself: If he feels his personal authority is truly threatened, how will he react? He may decide that he needs another crisis—perhaps a bigger one—to mobilize the public and stay in power. The most catastrophic scenarios, of course, are the ones that the Russians themselves have been preparing for, through military exercises, during the past six years.

Looking back, Obama’s evolving attitude toward Russia has followed a familiar arc. President Jimmy Carter started with détente and ended up arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan and boycotting the Moscow Olympics. Bush started with seeing Putin’s “soul” and ended up backing Georgia in its war with Russia, at least rhetorically. Obama, likewise, started with a reset and wound up with sanctions. The question for the next president is whether he or she can avoid repeating this pattern and find ways to engage the entire European continent in the long-term project of sustaining the Western alliance and protecting it from what could be a long era of Russian revanchism

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Sunday the United States should be more focused on defeating ISIS than ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Hagel, who was President Barack Obama's second secretary of defense, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" that "ISIS represents the real threat to our country -- the world."


Insisting that Assad must go eventually, though, puts the United States at risk of confusing its allies and adversaries, he said.

Hagel also discussed a memo he wrote to the White House in October 2014 -- a month before he announced his resignation -- criticizing the U.S. approach to Syria and urging a clearer view of how to handle Assad.

Obama seeks tricky balance in fight against ISIS

"What's happening here is completely out of control, and there's no prospect for bringing any kind of stability, I think, on the path we're on now, and that was what I was talking about in the memo," Hagel said.

However, there could be limits to how effectively the newly formed Franco-Russian alliance may play out, cautions Brisset.

“In terms of information and supplying, this collaboration could certainly be put into effect, even if political objectives differ. But to go any further than that would be politically difficult and technically complicated,” he said.

For Brisset the Franco-Russian rapprochement constitutes mere lip service.

“France hopes that the US and Russia, the true players in the game, will one day reach an agreement. But if Paris rides solo with Moscow, Washington could in turn close a couple of pipelines, namely in terms of supplies and information,” he said

He wants to reduce the global footprints of both the US and Europe.