The Biden administration is mulling to deploy several thousand troops, as well as warships and aircraft, to NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe amid fears of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to reports.

The US president is expected to make a decision as early as this week, the New York Times has reported citing unnamed Pentagon officials.

The reports state that the Pentagon officials met Biden on Saturday where several options were discussed to shift American military bases “much closer to Putin’s doorstep”.

Among the options discussed in the meet include sending 1,000 to 5,000 troops to Eastern European countries, with the potential to increase that number tenfold if things deteriorate.

It is being said that Biden’s latest offensive is to counter Russia’s troop build-up at Ukraine’s borders.

According to the Guardian report, Russia has amassed thousands of troops more along Ukraine’s borders.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/threat-of-war-forces-us-to-order-departure-of-ukrainian-embassy-staffs-kin-447011" hreflang="en">Threat of war forces US to order departure of Ukrainian embassy staff’s kin</a>

A large military force, including Iskander short-range ballistic missiles, elite spetsnaz troops and anti-aircraft batteries, has arrived in Belarus from Russia’s eastern military district, the report said.

Apart from that, six Russian landing ships capable of carrying main battle tanks, troops and other military vehicles travelled through the Channel en route to the Mediterranean last week in a deployment.

In a recent interview, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the US is focused on building deterrence to counter against any possible Ukraine invasion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-warns-russia-of-very-serious-consequences-if-it-installs-puppet-regime-in-ukraine-447008">UK warns Russia of 'very serious consequences' over Ukraine</a>

“Even as we’re engaged in diplomacy, we are very much focused on building up defence, building up deterrence,” he said on Sunday.

“NATO itself will continue to be reinforced in a significant way if Russia commits renewed acts of aggression. All of that is on the table,” he added.

Meanwhile, the US has warned its citizens not to travel to Russia amid “ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine”.

"Do not travel to Russia due to ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine," a statement from the US State Department said, adding that Americans could also face "harassment" and that the embassy would have "limited ability to assist US citizens."

(With inputs from agencies)

The Biden administration is mulling to deploy several thousand troops, as well as warships and aircraft, to NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe amid fears of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to reports.

The Biden administration is mulling to deploy several thousand troops, as well as warships and aircraft, to NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe amid fears of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to reports. The US president is expected to make a decision as early as this week, the New York Times has reported citing unnamed Pentagon officials. The reports state that the Pentagon officials met Biden on Saturday where several options were discussed to shift American military bases “much closer to Putin’s doorstep”. Among the options discussed in the meet include sending 1,000 to 5,000 troops to Eastern European countries, with the potential to increase that number tenfold if things deteriorate. It is being said that Biden’s latest offensive is to counter Russia’s troop build-up at Ukraine’s borders. According to the Guardian report, Russia has amassed thousands of troops more along Ukraine’s borders. Also read | Threat of war forces US to order departure of Ukrainian embassy staff’s kin A large military force, including Iskander short-range ballistic missiles, elite spetsnaz troops and anti-aircraft batteries, has arrived in Belarus from Russia’s eastern military district, the report said. Apart from that, six Russian landing ships capable of carrying main battle tanks, troops and other military vehicles travelled through the Channel en route to the Mediterranean last week in a deployment. In a recent interview, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the US is focused on building deterrence to counter against any possible Ukraine invasion. Also read | UK warns Russia of 'very serious consequences' over Ukraine “Even as we’re engaged in diplomacy, we are very much focused on building up defence, building up deterrence,” he said on Sunday. “NATO itself will continue to be reinforced in a significant way if Russia commits renewed acts of aggression. All of that is on the table,” he added. Meanwhile, the US has warned its citizens not to travel to Russia amid “ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine”. "Do not travel to Russia due to ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine," a statement from the US State Department said, adding that Americans could also face "harassment" and that the embassy would have "limited ability to assist US citizens." (With inputs from agencies)

Biden mulling to deploy thousands of troops to Eastern Europe, Baltics amid Russian invasion fears: Report

NATO has announced that it is deploying additional ships and fighter jets to Eastern Europe in response to Russia’s military buildup along its border with Ukraine.

NATO allies sends additional ships, jets to Eastern Europe amid standoff with Russia

Russia has accused NATO of ramping up Ukraine tensions with its latest deployment of troops. This after earlier NATO said that its allies have put forces on standby and sent ships and fighter jets to bolster Europe's Eastern defences.

NATO escalating Ukraine tensions with troops deployment, says Russia

The United States has ordered the family members of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave the country. The decision comes due to the ongoing threat of Russia's military action.

United States orders kin of embassy staff in Ukraine to leave the country

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his US counterpart Antony Blinken met on Friday in Geneva in order to discuss the situation in Ukraine and progress on Russia's security proposals.

Lavrov-Blinken Geneva Meet: A 90-minute-long talks with no concrete breakthrough

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov have held talks in Geneva over the Ukraine crisis.

Lavrov and Blinken discusses Ukraine crisis in Geneva

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US is committed to the path of diplomacy and dialogue, but is also committed to a united, swift and severe response if Russia commits aggression against Ukraine.

Swift response if Russian troops move into Ukraine, says Antony Blinken

The German Navy chief, Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, withdrew his comments&nbsp;where he called for rapprochement with Russian President Putin amid the Ukraine crisis,&nbsp;terming&nbsp;it as a “mistake”.

Speaking at a think tank in New Delhi on Friday, he said, "Does Russia really wants small and tiny strip of Ukraine soil, integrate the country. No, this is nonsense. Putin is probably putting pressure because he knows he can do it, and he splits EU opinion. What he really wants is respect. "

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Unbedacht, fehleingeschätzt in der Situation, hätte ich das so nicht tun dürfen. Da gibt es nichts zu deuteln, das war ein klarer Fehler. <a href="https://twitter.com/BMVg_Bundeswehr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BMVg_Bundeswehr</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/deutschemarine?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#deutschemarine</a> <a href="https://t.co/rJhoKqGYUy">https://t.co/rJhoKqGYUy</a>
— chiefdeunavy (@chiefdeunavy) <a href="https://twitter.com/chiefdeunavy/status/1484873540755152898?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

His comments went against the present narrative coming from Europe amid the deteriorating situation in Eastern Europe and the build-up of the Russian troops at the border with Ukraine.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-delhi-german-navy-chief-bats-for-good-ties-with-russia-to-rein-in-china-says-ukraine-cant-be-nato-member-446688">In Delhi, German Navy chief bats for good ties with Russia to rein in China, says Ukraine can't be NATO member</a>

The navy chief’s response came hours after the German Defence ministry distanced itself from his comments.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a> 
German Defence Ministry to <a href="https://twitter.com/BILD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BILD</a>: "In terms of content and choice of words, the statements in no way correspond to the position of the <a href="https://twitter.com/BMVg_Bundeswehr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BMVg_Bundeswehr</a>. 
Admiral Schönbach is given the opportunity to make a statement to the Inspector General." <a href="https://t.co/j8wvoVjvao">https://t.co/j8wvoVjvao</a>
— Julian Röpcke (@JulianRoepcke) <a href="https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1484842415714406404?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Issuing a statement to German newspaper BILD, the ministry said, “In terms of content and choice of words, the statements in no way correspond to the position of the Defence ministry. Admiral Schönbach is given the opportunity to make a statement to the Inspector General.”

The German Navy chief was delivering a talk on ‘Germany’s Indo-Pacific Strategy’ at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

He explained that good ties are needed with Russia to rein in China and added that Ukraine can’t be a NATO member.

“Even we India, Germany we need Russia. We need Russia against China...Having this big country, even if it's not a democracy, as a bilateral partner, gives them a chance. It's easy and keeps Russia away from China because China needs resources of Russia.”

Admiral Schönbach further said that Russia doesn't want NATO to reach its borders, with countries like Ukraine joining it.

It wants "security guarantees" from the west and the NATO that Ukraine doesn't join the security block, he said.

Numerous talks have taken place this month between Russia and US, but it hasn't yielded any results.

The comments in Delhi come even as the German Navy chief visit was aimed to show Berlin's increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific, but ended up with a diplomatic crisis in Berlin with sharp reactions seen back home in Germany.

The visit of the German Navy chief also coincides with the visit of German frigate “Bayern” making a port call in Mumbai, as part of its seven-month deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.

The German Navy chief, Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, withdrew his comments where he called for rapprochement with Russian President Putin amid the Ukraine crisis, terming it as a “mistake”.

The German Navy chief, Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, withdrew his comments where he called for rapprochement with Russian President Putin amid the Ukraine crisis, terming it as a “mistake”. Speaking at a think tank in New Delhi on Friday, he said, "Does Russia really wants small and tiny strip of Ukraine soil, integrate the country. No, this is nonsense. Putin is probably putting pressure because he knows he can do it, and he splits EU opinion. What he really wants is respect. " Unbedacht, fehleingeschätzt in der Situation, hätte ich das so nicht tun dürfen. Da gibt es nichts zu deuteln, das war ein klarer Fehler. @BMVg_Bundeswehr #deutschemarine https://t.co/rJhoKqGYUy — chiefdeunavy (@chiefdeunavy) January 22, 2022 × His comments went against the present narrative coming from Europe amid the deteriorating situation in Eastern Europe and the build-up of the Russian troops at the border with Ukraine. Also read | In Delhi, German Navy chief bats for good ties with Russia to rein in China, says Ukraine can't be NATO member The navy chief’s response came hours after the German Defence ministry distanced itself from his comments. #BREAKING German Defence Ministry to @BILD: "In terms of content and choice of words, the statements in no way correspond to the position of the @BMVg_Bundeswehr. Admiral Schönbach is given the opportunity to make a statement to the Inspector General." https://t.co/j8wvoVjvao — Julian Röpcke (@JulianRoepcke) January 22, 2022 × Issuing a statement to German newspaper BILD, the ministry said, “In terms of content and choice of words, the statements in no way correspond to the position of the Defence ministry. Admiral Schönbach is given the opportunity to make a statement to the Inspector General.” The German Navy chief was delivering a talk on ‘Germany’s Indo-Pacific Strategy’ at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi. He explained that good ties are needed with Russia to rein in China and added that Ukraine can’t be a NATO member. “Even we India, Germany we need Russia. We need Russia against China...Having this big country, even if it's not a democracy, as a bilateral partner, gives them a chance. It's easy and keeps Russia away from China because China needs resources of Russia.” Admiral Schönbach further said that Russia doesn't want NATO to reach its borders, with countries like Ukraine joining it. It wants "security guarantees" from the west and the NATO that Ukraine doesn't join the security block, he said. Numerous talks have taken place this month between Russia and US, but it hasn't yielded any results. The comments in Delhi come even as the German Navy chief visit was aimed to show Berlin's increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific, but ended up with a diplomatic crisis in Berlin with sharp reactions seen back home in Germany. The visit of the German Navy chief also coincides with the visit of German frigate “Bayern” making a port call in Mumbai, as part of its seven-month deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.

Political storm in Berlin: German Navy chief calls Delhi comments on Putin ‘mistake’

Momentum is building for a conflict in Ukraine. A gaffe by Joe Biden has given Russia the upper hand. The US President suggested he would tolerate a "minor invasion" in Ukraine. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Ukraine crisis: Will Russia go to war?

The much-awaited meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is underway in Geneva over Ukraine border crisis.

Lavrov and Blinken meet underway in Geneva, leaders discuss Ukraine border crisis

NATO foreign ministers met by video conference Friday (January 7) as they discussed Russia's military presence on Ukraine's borders and its implications for European security.&nbsp;

While speaking after the meeting, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, "Russia's aggressive actions seriously undermine the security order in Europe."&nbsp;

He added, "NATO remains committed to our dual-track approach to Russia: strong deterrence and defence, combined with meaningful dialogue."&nbsp;

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-demand-that-we-never-become-nato-member-illegitimate-ukraine-foreign-minister-to-wion-443079">Russian demand that we never become NATO member illegitimate: Ukraine foreign minister to WION</a>

Speaking about Russia's intention of having a dialogue, Stoltenberg said that it is a "positive signal" that Russia is now prepared to come to the table and talk because when "tensions are high, dialogue is even more important".

Hee said that the consultation is underway with other key partners, such as Georgia, Moldova, Finland and Sweden, as well as the European Union.

On Twitter, the foreign ministers of Latvia, Estonia, Belgium and Slovakia shared that sentiment, saying that NATO could not dilute its key principles or values.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-release-footage-where-man-bursts-into-flames-on-being-tased-by-police-after-using-sanitizer-443052">US discussed shipping Stinger missiles to Ukraine: Report</a>

During the meeting, the ministers stressed that any further aggression against Ukraine would have significant consequences and carry a heavy price for Russia.&nbsp;

Allies continue to stand with Ukraine and fully support its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the principle that all countries have the right to decide on their own path and their alliances.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, amid all the claims made by the West after Russia increased military deployment near the Ukraine border, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly denied plans for an invasion of Ukraine.&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Ukraine-Russia Tensions: Is War Imminent

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ukraine-russia-tensions-is-war-imminent-443053/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

(With inputs from agencies)

NATO foreign ministers met by video conference Friday (January 7) as they discussed Russia's military presence on Ukraine's borders and its implications for European security.

NATO foreign ministers met by video conference Friday (January 7) as they discussed Russia's military presence on Ukraine's borders and its implications for European security. While speaking after the meeting, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, "Russia's aggressive actions seriously undermine the security order in Europe." He added, "NATO remains committed to our dual-track approach to Russia: strong deterrence and defence, combined with meaningful dialogue." ALSO READ | Russian demand that we never become NATO member illegitimate: Ukraine foreign minister to WION Speaking about Russia's intention of having a dialogue, Stoltenberg said that it is a "positive signal" that Russia is now prepared to come to the table and talk because when "tensions are high, dialogue is even more important". Hee said that the consultation is underway with other key partners, such as Georgia, Moldova, Finland and Sweden, as well as the European Union. On Twitter, the foreign ministers of Latvia, Estonia, Belgium and Slovakia shared that sentiment, saying that NATO could not dilute its key principles or values. ALSO READ | US discussed shipping Stinger missiles to Ukraine: Report During the meeting, the ministers stressed that any further aggression against Ukraine would have significant consequences and carry a heavy price for Russia. Allies continue to stand with Ukraine and fully support its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the principle that all countries have the right to decide on their own path and their alliances. Meanwhile, amid all the claims made by the West after Russia increased military deployment near the Ukraine border, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly denied plans for an invasion of Ukraine. Watch: Ukraine-Russia Tensions: Is War Imminent × (With inputs from agencies)

NATO members express solidarity ahead of Russia talks: 'We are also consulting with other key partners'

Landfills have become a common site in Ukraine and, the reason for this is the lack of a proper waste management system. Ukraine is now home to more than 33 000 illegal dumps more in our next report.

Ukraine struggles with trash crisis

In the last three years with the humdrum of events in the Middle East, the European immigration crisis and a host of other competing geopolitical issues, somehow the crisis in Ukraine, which came into being in 2014, and its potential implications for European security bypassed most international concerns. It has come back into the reckoning with the recent Russian seizure of three Ukrainian ships sailing to the Sea of Azov from the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait. Under a 2003 treaty between Moscow and Kiev, the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are shared territorial waters but Ukraine claimed their ships were fired upon and prevented access they legitimately sought; six sailors were injured too. The Russians have been playing a game of denial while preventing freedom of navigation to Ukraine to access its eastern region by sea. This region is home to two important ports, Berdyansk and Mariupol, from which major Ukraine export and import trade is carried out. There is more to it considering that this is the region close to the area where the minority ethnic Russian separatists are preventing domination of the Ukrainian majority and thus Western control.

Very few are aware today that one of the sharpest hybrid conflicts is currently prevailing in Ukraine and is alleged to be sponsored by Russia; the European Union and NATO believe that it has Russia’s stamp all over it as a part of the resurgence in Russian concern about its security of the western flank. It’s a complex issue which had all the likelihood of blowing into a much larger crisis; yet it has festered with international attention far too focused on other areas of concern. That concern is returning; so it is important to know how this began four years ago and what the larger strategic implications are.

When Ukraine separated from the erstwhile USSR in 1991, both Russia and Europe wished to incorporate Ukraine into their respective transnational strategies due to its unique geostrategic location almost akin to Turkey, as a bridge between Europe and the Caucasus. Incorporation within the European structure would mean an aggressive march of the Western alliance towards the Russian ‘near abroad’ region; something that was progressively happening with assimilation of former Warsaw Pact countries.

However, Russia had additional stakes here. About 17 per cent of Ukraine’s population or 8.5 million is ethnic Russian and wishes to retain its Russian linkage for mutual security. Independent Ukraine has rested on a fragile social consensus of a population holding onto an ever fading promise that prosperity would come from leaving the Soviet Union and joining the West. Yet Ukraine is poorer than it was in the last year when it left the Soviet Union.

There have been uprisings in 1994, 2001 and 2004 (Orange Revolution) but the increasingly massive protests failed each time to fundamentally change things.&nbsp;

These protests, termed the Maidan Revolution, have traditionally commenced from Kiev’s central square called the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. Ukraine remained divided between becoming Euro or Russia centric, even as the bigger states of the EU rejected attempts to admit it to the elite Euro club.

The Euro-Maidan revolution of 2014, which saw protests against the democratically elected and Russian supported President Viktor Yanukovych, was what the Russian leadership feared the most. A potential easing away of the controls over political and economic strings which tied the nations in the region to Russia’s interests. Russia’s principal motive in seizing Crimea and backing the separatist movement in the east was not to gain territory, but above all to suppress the Euro-Maidan and to restore Russia’s influence over the government in Kiev that Yanukovych had previously guaranteed. The Maidan threatened Russia’s interests not only in Ukraine: it showed that oligarchic-capitalist states in the region could be overthrown by a sustained popular uprising.

Russia aimed to prevent Ukraine’s further incorporation into the Atlantic alliance through an association agreement or a free trade regime with the EU or a path to NATO membership. It was alarmed at the economic consequences for itself of an EU-Ukraine free trade regime and at the possibility that this might become a back door for Ukraine to get into NATO. Through the last four years, Russia has pursued hybrid conflict below the threshold; that threshold may be crossed with it naval actions against the Ukraine Navy; the latter has threatened to pursue its right to sail into the Sea of Azov.

While economic sanctions by the US-led Western alliance were placed early and continue, there are three reasons for the continuing crisis. These are: The unrelenting revival of Russian imperialism since 2000, the divisions in the Western alliance over policy towards Russia, and the diminished capacity of the USA to project its own power into the region. The US also worries about the potentially enhancing German power over the region if given a free hand but is incapable of doing much on its own. In the meanwhile, the oligarchs who run Ukraine are unable to revamp its economy unless the country steps towards either of the competing camps.

Given the recent instability in France and Belgium and the expected spread of instability to other parts of Europe, Ukraine remains one other area of major concern in the European security matrix unless the Western alliance and Russia can come to some terms of agreement for joint control without decided advantage to either. The question is will the people of Ukraine allow joint control or attempt to take things in their hands, leading to yet another round of instability.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-forgotten-ukraine-crisis-2698789">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

In the last three years with the humdrum of events in the Middle East, the European immigration crisis and a host of other competing geopolitical issues, somehow the crisis in Ukraine, which came into being in 2014, and its potential implications for European security bypassed most international concerns.

In the last three years with the humdrum of events in the Middle East, the European immigration crisis and a host of other competing geopolitical issues, somehow the crisis in Ukraine, which came into being in 2014, and its potential implications for European security bypassed most international concerns. It has come back into the reckoning with the recent Russian seizure of three Ukrainian ships sailing to the Sea of Azov from the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait. Under a 2003 treaty between Moscow and Kiev, the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are shared territorial waters but Ukraine claimed their ships were fired upon and prevented access they legitimately sought; six sailors were injured too. The Russians have been playing a game of denial while preventing freedom of navigation to Ukraine to access its eastern region by sea. This region is home to two important ports, Berdyansk and Mariupol, from which major Ukraine export and import trade is carried out. There is more to it considering that this is the region close to the area where the minority ethnic Russian separatists are preventing domination of the Ukrainian majority and thus Western control. Very few are aware today that one of the sharpest hybrid conflicts is currently prevailing in Ukraine and is alleged to be sponsored by Russia; the European Union and NATO believe that it has Russia’s stamp all over it as a part of the resurgence in Russian concern about its security of the western flank. It’s a complex issue which had all the likelihood of blowing into a much larger crisis; yet it has festered with international attention far too focused on other areas of concern. That concern is returning; so it is important to know how this began four years ago and what the larger strategic implications are. When Ukraine separated from the erstwhile USSR in 1991, both Russia and Europe wished to incorporate Ukraine into their respective transnational strategies due to its unique geostrategic location almost akin to Turkey, as a bridge between Europe and the Caucasus. Incorporation within the European structure would mean an aggressive march of the Western alliance towards the Russian ‘near abroad’ region; something that was progressively happening with assimilation of former Warsaw Pact countries. However, Russia had additional stakes here. About 17 per cent of Ukraine’s population or 8.5 million is ethnic Russian and wishes to retain its Russian linkage for mutual security. Independent Ukraine has rested on a fragile social consensus of a population holding onto an ever fading promise that prosperity would come from leaving the Soviet Union and joining the West. Yet Ukraine is poorer than it was in the last year when it left the Soviet Union. There have been uprisings in 1994, 2001 and 2004 (Orange Revolution) but the increasingly massive protests failed each time to fundamentally change things. These protests, termed the Maidan Revolution, have traditionally commenced from Kiev’s central square called the Maidan Nezalezhnosti. Ukraine remained divided between becoming Euro or Russia centric, even as the bigger states of the EU rejected attempts to admit it to the elite Euro club. The Euro-Maidan revolution of 2014, which saw protests against the democratically elected and Russian supported President Viktor Yanukovych, was what the Russian leadership feared the most. A potential easing away of the controls over political and economic strings which tied the nations in the region to Russia’s interests. Russia’s principal motive in seizing Crimea and backing the separatist movement in the east was not to gain territory, but above all to suppress the Euro-Maidan and to restore Russia’s influence over the government in Kiev that Yanukovych had previously guaranteed. The Maidan threatened Russia’s interests not only in Ukraine: it showed that oligarchic-capitalist states in the region could be overthrown by a sustained popular uprising. Russia aimed to prevent Ukraine’s further incorporation into the Atlantic alliance through an association agreement or a free trade regime with the EU or a path to NATO membership. It was alarmed at the economic consequences for itself of an EU-Ukraine free trade regime and at the possibility that this might become a back door for Ukraine to get into NATO. Through the last four years, Russia has pursued hybrid conflict below the threshold; that threshold may be crossed with it naval actions against the Ukraine Navy; the latter has threatened to pursue its right to sail into the Sea of Azov. While economic sanctions by the US-led Western alliance were placed early and continue, there are three reasons for the continuing crisis. These are: The unrelenting revival of Russian imperialism since 2000, the divisions in the Western alliance over policy towards Russia, and the diminished capacity of the USA to project its own power into the region. The US also worries about the potentially enhancing German power over the region if given a free hand but is incapable of doing much on its own. In the meanwhile, the oligarchs who run Ukraine are unable to revamp its economy unless the country steps towards either of the competing camps. Given the recent instability in France and Belgium and the expected spread of instability to other parts of Europe, Ukraine remains one other area of major concern in the European security matrix unless the Western alliance and Russia can come to some terms of agreement for joint control without decided advantage to either. The question is will the people of Ukraine allow joint control or attempt to take things in their hands, leading to yet another round of instability. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The forgotten Ukraine crisis

By:&nbspDavid Rowe*

With the FIFA World Cup just days away, I have been chatting with people on my travels through central and northern Europe to gauge their opinions about Russia being the host.

Several people have simply sighed, resigned to the fact that nefarious FIFA politics won the day. One Prague taxi driver, remembering the Soviet-led invasion of his country in 1968, hated the idea, but another Czech shrugged and said that most people, especially those too young to remember the Communist rule, would just focus on the football.

Indeed, many football fans will be thinking only of stoppage-time goals, dubious penalties and defence-splitting passes when the tournament kicks off on Thursday. But it’s also worth reflecting on Russia and the ethics of selecting hosts for major events in today’s commercially driven and politicised sports world.

The case against Russia

Every time there is a contest to host a World Cup or Olympics, debate ensues about the criteria for selection. These include technical matters like the economic and infrastructural capacity to stage a massive spectacle, and an overarching belief in spreading sports like football to new corners of the world.

But non-sporting matters also come into consideration. Organisers always consider the potential that awarding hosting rights to the wrong country could bring a major sporting event into disrepute.

Cases have been made against a string of host cities and countries over the years. These include the 1978 Argentina World Cup (military coup), the 1968 Mexico City and 1988 Seoul Olympics (popular demonstrations and violence), the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics (bribery), the 2008 Beijing Olympics (human rights and crackdowns in Tibet) and the 2010 South Africa and 2014 Brazil World Cups (financial mismanagement and lack of preparedness).

So, Russia is by no means the first country to be faced with threats of boycotts or being stripped of its hosting rights. But it is something of a standout case, because of the spectrum of its egregious behaviour since being awarded the World Cup (and 2014 Winter Olympics). What’s remarkable is that Russia has stains on its record both in and outside the sporting world.

Inside sport, Russia is most notorious for its wide-ranging state-sponsored doping programme, which included swapping positive-testing urine samples for negative ones through a "mouse hole" in the wall of the anti-doping laboratory at the 2014 Sochi Games. Russian athletes were subsequently banned from flying their national flag and competing under the Team Russia name at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics and Paralympics.

For foreign football fans visiting Russia, there are additional concerns over hooliganism and the "racism, nationalism, homophobia and sexism" that has been well-documented in Russian football.

FIFA's culture of money and influence

Russia, of course, has furiously denied everything, making much-outraged noise while pointing out the hypocrisy of its most vocal detractors. The latter reaction has some legitimacy – Russia does not have a monopoly on external aggression, calculated corruption and internal repression.

And although the process by which Russia and Qatar won their World Cup bids was undeniably flawed, there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy among the losers who played their part in the whole charade. Few of the bidding countries for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments came out of American prosecutor Michael Garcia's lengthy but imperfect investigation of the decisions unscathed. This includes Australia, which burned a cool $AU45 million of public money on a futile attempt to work its levers of access and persuasion.

But Russia's sheer effrontery in recent years makes it an especially conspicuous target for those wondering what it would take for a country to be barred from hosting the world's largest sports party on ethical grounds.

That it hasn't been stripped of the World Cup says much about global sport's intensely commercial and political imperatives. Nothing exemplifies this state of affairs more than the emergence of FIFA as a machine of money, influence and subterfuge under the presidencies of João Havelange and Sepp Blatter from 1974 to 2015.

FIFA’s moment of truth came with the arrests of a coterie of top officials at its 2015 Zurich congress – a very different image of the organisation than the one propagated in FIFA's absurdly self-aggrandising 2014 docudrama film United Passions.

Blatter and many of his associates have since been swept away. But there's been little appetite for voiding the controversial Russia and Qatar victories and re-opening the bidding process, despite the efforts of politicians like former British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Nor have there been realistic calls for team boycotts of the 2018 World Cup. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop briefly flagged the idea of a World Cup-related action against Russia but said a boycott was not under consideration. So far only a few countries have confirmed boycotts by dignitaries, such as the UK, Poland and Iceland.

New standards for selecting hosts

Has FIFA reformed itself sufficiently under new President Gianni Infantino to ensure that a country like Russia will never again be rewarded after fuelling so much international condemnation with its actions?

We may soon get an idea. On June 13, the day before the opening match, the 68th FIFA Congress meets in Moscow to decide the 2026 World Cup host. There are new rules in place, including a more stringent bid appraisal process and an open ballot of all FIFA member associations.

There are only two bids for 2026 – Morocco and a North American joint bid submitted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The former has its own human rights issues, while the latter has US President Donald Trump's proposed travel bans and implied threats to countries who do not support the bid.

Will the new process result in a fair, transparent outcome? Not according to Bonita Mersiades, the whistle-blowing former head of corporate and public affairs at Football Federation Australia and author of Whatever It Takes: The Inside Story of the FIFA Way, and her fellow campaigners at the reform advocacy group New FIFA Now.

New FIFA Now and the recently formed Foundation for Sports Integrity argue that a new FIFA governance model under the control of fans and players is required. Among New FIFA Now's guiding principles for FIFA reform is this recommendation on selecting future hosts:

Establish a one-off committee of relevant experts from around the world to investigate and recommend the staging of future men's World Cup tournaments. The objective would be to ameliorate the World Cup as a vehicle for geopolitical soft power and brand building of nation states, as well as the construction of 'white elephants' and the demands of government guarantees made by FIFA to host nations that compromise and jeopardise international and domestic law.

Reformist proposals like these are gaining traction as part of widespread push-back against the excessive demands and massive costs of hosting mega sports events. The questions posed by Russia's winning bid should only add to the calls for change.

It's expected that over 3 billion people will catch at least some of this year's World Cup over the next month. Let's hope they look beyond the spectacle to ponder how the beautiful game made its way to Russia at this point in its history and whether it was worth the ethical price.

David Rowe is an Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University.

(This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/id">The Conversation</a>. Read the original <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-russia-worthy-of-hosting-the-world-cup-96917">article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

For foreign football fans visiting Russia, there are additional concerns over hooliganism and the 'racism, nationalism, homophobia and sexism' that has been well-documented in Russian football

By: David Rowe* With the FIFA World Cup just days away, I have been chatting with people on my travels through central and northern Europe to gauge their opinions about Russia being the host. Several people have simply sighed, resigned to the fact that nefarious FIFA politics won the day. One Prague taxi driver, remembering the Soviet-led invasion of his country in 1968, hated the idea, but another Czech shrugged and said that most people, especially those too young to remember the Communist rule, would just focus on the football. Indeed, many football fans will be thinking only of stoppage-time goals, dubious penalties and defence-splitting passes when the tournament kicks off on Thursday. But it’s also worth reflecting on Russia and the ethics of selecting hosts for major events in today’s commercially driven and politicised sports world. The case against Russia Every time there is a contest to host a World Cup or Olympics, debate ensues about the criteria for selection. These include technical matters like the economic and infrastructural capacity to stage a massive spectacle, and an overarching belief in spreading sports like football to new corners of the world. But non-sporting matters also come into consideration. Organisers always consider the potential that awarding hosting rights to the wrong country could bring a major sporting event into disrepute. Cases have been made against a string of host cities and countries over the years. These include the 1978 Argentina World Cup (military coup), the 1968 Mexico City and 1988 Seoul Olympics (popular demonstrations and violence), the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics (bribery), the 2008 Beijing Olympics (human rights and crackdowns in Tibet) and the 2010 South Africa and 2014 Brazil World Cups (financial mismanagement and lack of preparedness). So, Russia is by no means the first country to be faced with threats of boycotts or being stripped of its hosting rights. But it is something of a standout case, because of the spectrum of its egregious behaviour since being awarded the World Cup (and 2014 Winter Olympics). What’s remarkable is that Russia has stains on its record both in and outside the sporting world. Inside sport, Russia is most notorious for its wide-ranging state-sponsored doping programme, which included swapping positive-testing urine samples for negative ones through a "mouse hole" in the wall of the anti-doping laboratory at the 2014 Sochi Games. Russian athletes were subsequently banned from flying their national flag and competing under the Team Russia name at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics and Paralympics. For foreign football fans visiting Russia, there are additional concerns over hooliganism and the "racism, nationalism, homophobia and sexism" that has been well-documented in Russian football. FIFA's culture of money and influence Russia, of course, has furiously denied everything, making much-outraged noise while pointing out the hypocrisy of its most vocal detractors. The latter reaction has some legitimacy – Russia does not have a monopoly on external aggression, calculated corruption and internal repression. And although the process by which Russia and Qatar won their World Cup bids was undeniably flawed, there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy among the losers who played their part in the whole charade. Few of the bidding countries for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments came out of American prosecutor Michael Garcia's lengthy but imperfect investigation of the decisions unscathed. This includes Australia, which burned a cool $AU45 million of public money on a futile attempt to work its levers of access and persuasion. But Russia's sheer effrontery in recent years makes it an especially conspicuous target for those wondering what it would take for a country to be barred from hosting the world's largest sports party on ethical grounds. That it hasn't been stripped of the World Cup says much about global sport's intensely commercial and political imperatives. Nothing exemplifies this state of affairs more than the emergence of FIFA as a machine of money, influence and subterfuge under the presidencies of João Havelange and Sepp Blatter from 1974 to 2015. FIFA’s moment of truth came with the arrests of a coterie of top officials at its 2015 Zurich congress – a very different image of the organisation than the one propagated in FIFA's absurdly self-aggrandising 2014 docudrama film United Passions. Blatter and many of his associates have since been swept away. But there's been little appetite for voiding the controversial Russia and Qatar victories and re-opening the bidding process, despite the efforts of politicians like former British Prime Minister David Cameron. Nor have there been realistic calls for team boycotts of the 2018 World Cup. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop briefly flagged the idea of a World Cup-related action against Russia but said a boycott was not under consideration. So far only a few countries have confirmed boycotts by dignitaries, such as the UK, Poland and Iceland. New standards for selecting hosts Has FIFA reformed itself sufficiently under new President Gianni Infantino to ensure that a country like Russia will never again be rewarded after fuelling so much international condemnation with its actions? We may soon get an idea. On June 13, the day before the opening match, the 68th FIFA Congress meets in Moscow to decide the 2026 World Cup host. There are new rules in place, including a more stringent bid appraisal process and an open ballot of all FIFA member associations. There are only two bids for 2026 – Morocco and a North American joint bid submitted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The former has its own human rights issues, while the latter has US President Donald Trump's proposed travel bans and implied threats to countries who do not support the bid. Will the new process result in a fair, transparent outcome? Not according to Bonita Mersiades, the whistle-blowing former head of corporate and public affairs at Football Federation Australia and author of Whatever It Takes: The Inside Story of the FIFA Way, and her fellow campaigners at the reform advocacy group New FIFA Now. New FIFA Now and the recently formed Foundation for Sports Integrity argue that a new FIFA governance model under the control of fans and players is required. Among New FIFA Now's guiding principles for FIFA reform is this recommendation on selecting future hosts: Establish a one-off committee of relevant experts from around the world to investigate and recommend the staging of future men's World Cup tournaments. The objective would be to ameliorate the World Cup as a vehicle for geopolitical soft power and brand building of nation states, as well as the construction of 'white elephants' and the demands of government guarantees made by FIFA to host nations that compromise and jeopardise international and domestic law. Reformist proposals like these are gaining traction as part of widespread push-back against the excessive demands and massive costs of hosting mega sports events. The questions posed by Russia's winning bid should only add to the calls for change. It's expected that over 3 billion people will catch at least some of this year's World Cup over the next month. Let's hope they look beyond the spectacle to ponder how the beautiful game made its way to Russia at this point in its history and whether it was worth the ethical price. David Rowe is an Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Is Russia worthy of hosting the football World Cup?

The Kremlin insisted US sanctions against Russia were &quot;illegal&quot; today, a day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to extend measures put in place during the Ukraine crisis.

&quot;We have never been the initiator of these sanctions, we consider them illegal and harmful not just to the people of our two countries but the whole world,&quot; Russian presidential press spokesman Dmitry Peskov said today, Interfax news agency reported.

Washington imposed sanctions on Moscow following Russia&#39;s 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula and Moscow&#39;s backing of rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin this week set the course for a new arms race with Washington as he boasted of a new generation of &quot;invincible&quot; Russian weapons developed in response to the threat posed by the US.

The moves come as relations between the global powers plummeted to levels not seen since the Cold War, despite candidate Trump&#39;s promises to mend fences.

As well as the Ukraine crisis, Russia and the US have clashed over the conflict in Syria and accusations that Moscow interfered in the US election in 2016.

Washington imposed sanctions on Moscow following Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula and Moscow's backing of rebels in eastern Ukraine

The Kremlin insisted US sanctions against Russia were "illegal" today, a day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to extend measures put in place during the Ukraine crisis. "We have never been the initiator of these sanctions, we consider them illegal and harmful not just to the people of our two countries but the whole world," Russian presidential press spokesman Dmitry Peskov said today, Interfax news agency reported. Washington imposed sanctions on Moscow following Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula and Moscow's backing of rebels in eastern Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin this week set the course for a new arms race with Washington as he boasted of a new generation of "invincible" Russian weapons developed in response to the threat posed by the US. The moves come as relations between the global powers plummeted to levels not seen since the Cold War, despite candidate Trump's promises to mend fences. As well as the Ukraine crisis, Russia and the US have clashed over the conflict in Syria and accusations that Moscow interfered in the US election in 2016.

Russia slams 'illegal and harmful' extended US sanctions

European Union leaders agreed on Thursday to extend the bloc`s main economic&nbsp;sanctions against Russia over the turmoil in Ukraine for six months until mid-2017, diplomats said.&nbsp;

The decision was expected and the formal process to extend the sanctions on Russia`s defence, energy&nbsp;and financial sectors will take place early next week, they said.

&quot;We welcome unanimous decision by the EU to extend economic and sectoral sanctions against Russia,&quot;&nbsp;Ukraine`s president, Petro Poroshenko, said in a statement.

&quot;I am sincerely grateful for unwavering unity and solidarity of the European leaders in restoring&nbsp;Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Crimea.&quot;&nbsp;

The bloc slapped sanctions on Russia after it annexed Ukraine`s Black Sea peninsula of Crimea from&nbsp;Ukraine in 2014 and stepped them up as Moscow went on to support a separatist rebellion in Ukraine`s&nbsp;industrial east.&nbsp;

The conflict is not resolved and has killed nearly 10,000 people.&nbsp;

The decision was also meant as a signal to US&nbsp;President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on&nbsp;January&nbsp;20 and has worried the EU with his promises to seek a rapprochement with Russia.&nbsp;

&quot;It would send a very bad signal vis-a-vis Trump if we shied away from this extension, or prolonged&nbsp;them by a shorter period of time,&quot; a senior EU official said.

Poland was among the EU states that wanted a longer extension of the sanctions, but Italy has been a&nbsp;leading voice in the bloc in calling for re-establishing business ties with Moscow.&nbsp;

Despite threats in October by some EU leaders, the bloc has shied away from slapping new sanctions&nbsp;on Russia over the conflict in Syria.

In a separate decision on Thursday, EU leaders agreed to spell out limits to a landmark cooperation&nbsp;accord with Ukraine in order to address Dutch concerns and prevent the deal from falling through.

(AFP)

EU leaders agreed to extend for another six months damaging economic sanctions imposed on Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis

European Union leaders agreed on Thursday to extend the bloc`s main economic sanctions against Russia over the turmoil in Ukraine for six months until mid-2017, diplomats said. The decision was expected and the formal process to extend the sanctions on Russia`s defence, energy and financial sectors will take place early next week, they said. "We welcome unanimous decision by the EU to extend economic and sectoral sanctions against Russia," Ukraine`s president, Petro Poroshenko, said in a statement. "I am sincerely grateful for unwavering unity and solidarity of the European leaders in restoring Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Crimea." The bloc slapped sanctions on Russia after it annexed Ukraine`s Black Sea peninsula of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and stepped them up as Moscow went on to support a separatist rebellion in Ukraine`s industrial east. The conflict is not resolved and has killed nearly 10,000 people. The decision was also meant as a signal to US President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on January 20 and has worried the EU with his promises to seek a rapprochement with Russia. "It would send a very bad signal vis-a-vis Trump if we shied away from this extension, or prolonged them by a shorter period of time," a senior EU official said. Poland was among the EU states that wanted a longer extension of the sanctions, but Italy has been a leading voice in the bloc in calling for re-establishing business ties with Moscow. Despite threats in October by some EU leaders, the bloc has shied away from slapping new sanctions on Russia over the conflict in Syria. In a separate decision on Thursday, EU leaders agreed to spell out limits to a landmark cooperation accord with Ukraine in order to address Dutch concerns and prevent the deal from falling through. (AFP)

EU agrees to extend sanctions against Russia until mid-2017

NATO and Russia today will hold their first talks since the alliance agreed at a summit in Warsaw to beef up its presence in eastern Europe due to fears over the Kremlin&#39;s expansionism. 
 
The meeting between ambassadors from the 28-nation alliance and Russia is the first since April and just the second since 2014, when the Ukraine crisis plunged relations into a deep freeze. 
 
The alliance said it would brief Moscow on last week&#39;s decision to send four battalions totalling around 4,000 soldiers to Poland and the Baltic states, which have been nervous ever since Russia&#39;s 2014 annexation of Crimea. 
 
Moscow said it would discuss the risks of the US missile shield that NATO declared operational at the summit in the Polish capital, as well as improving airspace safety over the Baltic. 
 
&quot;Allies and Russia will discuss three topics - the crisis in Ukraine, military transparency and the security situation in Afghanistan,&quot; NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said. 
 
&quot;In the spirit of transparency, we will brief Russia on the important decisions we took in Warsaw last week to enhance our security.&quot; 
 
Russia has been strongly critical of the NATO decision, accusing the alliance of aggression and warning that it will react to the deployment of forces in its former Soviet backyard.&nbsp;But NATO said it was acting purely defensively. 
 
&quot;NATO does not pose a threat to Russia. We do not seek confrontation. We continue to aspire to a constructive relationship with Russia, when Russia&#39;s actions make that possible,&quot; Romero said. 
 
&quot;Tomorrow&#39;s meeting is a sign that NATO is following through on our commitment to political dialogue with Russia.&quot; 
 
The last set of talks in Brussels in April ended in &quot;profound disagreements&quot; between NATO and Russia over Ukraine and other issues, despite hopes they could ease years of tensions.&nbsp;NATO leaders meeting in the Polish capital last week said they had agreed on a twin-track policy of &quot;deterrence and dialogue&quot; with Russia, insisting they would not back down until Moscow abided by the Minsk peace deal for Ukraine. 
 
Alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg said they &quot;stand together&quot; despite signs from some NATO nations like France that they want to focus on a diplomatic solution with Moscow.&nbsp;Moscow however slammed NATO at the weekend for focusing on a &quot;non-existent&quot; threat from Russia and accusing it of living in a &quot;military-political looking-glass world&quot;. 
 
It took a more measured line on Tuesday, with Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying Moscow plans to raise &quot;increasing aviation safety in the Baltic Sea region&quot; at the Brussels talks.&nbsp; 
 
Russia&#39;s NATO-member Baltic neighbours have accused Moscow of regularly violating their airspace in recent months and flying with switched-off transponders, devices that allow radars to identify planes and prevent collisions. 
 
President Vladimir Putin this month backed a call for all military aircraft flying over the Baltic region to keep their transponders on.&nbsp; 
At the summit with NATO, Moscow will also &quot;stress the risks to strategic stability that have appeared as a result of the ongoing construction of the US and NATO anti-missile system in Europe,&quot; Zakharova said. 
 
NATO insists the missile shield is aimed at Iran or possible rogue non-state actors, and says it poses no threat to Russia&#39;s military deterrent.&nbsp; 
 
(AFP)

The last talks in Brussels in April ended in 'profound disagreements' between NATO and Russia over Ukraine and other issues

NATO and Russia today will hold their first talks since the alliance agreed at a summit in Warsaw to beef up its presence in eastern Europe due to fears over the Kremlin's expansionism. The meeting between ambassadors from the 28-nation alliance and Russia is the first since April and just the second since 2014, when the Ukraine crisis plunged relations into a deep freeze. The alliance said it would brief Moscow on last week's decision to send four battalions totalling around 4,000 soldiers to Poland and the Baltic states, which have been nervous ever since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. Moscow said it would discuss the risks of the US missile shield that NATO declared operational at the summit in the Polish capital, as well as improving airspace safety over the Baltic. "Allies and Russia will discuss three topics - the crisis in Ukraine, military transparency and the security situation in Afghanistan," NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said. "In the spirit of transparency, we will brief Russia on the important decisions we took in Warsaw last week to enhance our security." Russia has been strongly critical of the NATO decision, accusing the alliance of aggression and warning that it will react to the deployment of forces in its former Soviet backyard. But NATO said it was acting purely defensively. "NATO does not pose a threat to Russia. We do not seek confrontation. We continue to aspire to a constructive relationship with Russia, when Russia's actions make that possible," Romero said. "Tomorrow's meeting is a sign that NATO is following through on our commitment to political dialogue with Russia." The last set of talks in Brussels in April ended in "profound disagreements" between NATO and Russia over Ukraine and other issues, despite hopes they could ease years of tensions. NATO leaders meeting in the Polish capital last week said they had agreed on a twin-track policy of "deterrence and dialogue" with Russia, insisting they would not back down until Moscow abided by the Minsk peace deal for Ukraine. Alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg said they "stand together" despite signs from some NATO nations like France that they want to focus on a diplomatic solution with Moscow. Moscow however slammed NATO at the weekend for focusing on a "non-existent" threat from Russia and accusing it of living in a "military-political looking-glass world". It took a more measured line on Tuesday, with Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying Moscow plans to raise "increasing aviation safety in the Baltic Sea region" at the Brussels talks. Russia's NATO-member Baltic neighbours have accused Moscow of regularly violating their airspace in recent months and flying with switched-off transponders, devices that allow radars to identify planes and prevent collisions. President Vladimir Putin this month backed a call for all military aircraft flying over the Baltic region to keep their transponders on. At the summit with NATO, Moscow will also "stress the risks to strategic stability that have appeared as a result of the ongoing construction of the US and NATO anti-missile system in Europe," Zakharova said. NATO insists the missile shield is aimed at Iran or possible rogue non-state actors, and says it poses no threat to Russia's military deterrent. (AFP)

NATO, Russia to meet after alliance boosts troops over Kremlin expansionism

ukraine-crisis

Ukraine Crisis, News on Ukraine Crisis, stories on Ukraine Crisis, articles on Ukraine Crisis, Ukraine Crisis stories at Wion, Ukraine Crisis news, Ukraine Crisis latest news

ukraine crisis