Big War Lurks Over Syria As France Invokes EU Treaty's Mutual Defense Clause

Paris - France has invoked The EU treaty's 'mutual defence clause' formally on 17 November during a meeting of EU defence ministers. The decision was taken in reaction to the multiple terrorist attacks on 13 November against the French capital. Bilateral talks will take place immediately between France and its 27 EU partners to map out the assistance the latter will provide, said French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. 

It is the first time the clause has been activated.

The clause, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty, spells out that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states "shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter".

"This is a very strong act," Le Drian told reporters in Brussels at a joint press conference with Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign and security policy chief, during the ministers' meeting. 

By the statements of Le Drian, it is evident that France is asking the European allies to join the war in Syria. He said France will seek pooled capabilities, support for French intervention in Syria and Iraq, or other efforts to help free up French forces committed elsewhere across the globe or on its home territory.

 "Support for our other operations would lighten our load," he said. "We can't be in the Sahel [Mali], in the Central African Republic, in Lebanon, or [protecting] all our national territory at the same time. Thus, we will discuss what each partner could contribute - either on our territory or elsewhere."

"There are many types of assistance possible, whether in the Middle Eastern arena or elsewhere. I am confident that everyone will step up to the plate quickly; otherwise it makes no sense."

It was also hinted by Le that actually France wants some of European states to take load off of France by taking responsibilities in some of the global hotspots where French forces are engaged so that France can fully focus on Syria.

Le Drian said the article's invocation "will enable us to have the necessary bilateral support and co-operation among us to translate the commitment of the Defence Council [of EU defence ministers] into action".

COMMENT:

A big war in Syria is in making where it is not certain who will prevail in the end because it is not a war two clear opponents would fight, Syria has become a strategic blackhole in Middle East where all major powers are being sucked in. Russia and the US are already there while China has also vowed to avenge the killings of Chinese nationals at hands of ISIS. Though there is very less probability that China will join US led campaign in Syria, the news proves that China is also among the victim nations of ISIS many of which want to go to Syria to crush ISIS. Security & Threat Matrix has done an analysis on what possibly can go wrong if France choose retribution over justice as response strategy against ISIS for 13/11 terror attacks. 

Paris Attacks: What will be French Response : Justice or Retribution?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

French President Francois Hollande has promised a merciless response to ISIS who has claimed the responsibility of the wave of terror strikes by gunmen and bombers that killed at least 129 people at six different places in Paris on Friday (Saturday morning in Pakistan). 87 people were killed by terrorist at Bataclan concert hall where, according to reports, 3 suicide bombers blew themselves before French anti-terrorism force stormed the hall and rescued many survivors. More than 40 people were killed at five other locations including double suicide bombing outside the Stade de France national stadium, where Mr Hollande and the German foreign minister were watching a friendly soccer international between the two countries.

The attack is being described as the most brutal incident since World War II. “The terrorists, the murderers, raked several cafe terraces with machine-gun fire before entering (the concert hall). There were many victims in terrible, atrocious conditions in several places,” police prefect Michel Cadot told reporters.

French government has announced three days of national mourning.

President Hollande described the assault as “an act of war” against France. He made his reaction as well. “France will be merciless towards these barbarians from Daesh,” he said, using the Arabic acronym for IS.

French leader also said that the attack was planned on a foreign soil.

It must be remembered that France is already at war with ISIS in Syria and is one of the most active participant of US led alliance against the terror organization. 

Former president Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a total war against ISIS. “The war we must wage should be total.”, said Mr. Sarkozy in a statement.

The intensity of this incident has forced the entire Europe to tighten the border security. Germany, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Hungary and the Netherlands also tightened security measures after the incident.

How France is going to respond to this attack is pretty much clear but is this a right strategy keeping in mind the two unfinished wars of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? and more important question is, will a military-oriented strategy by France will ensure the security of its people and prevention of any next 13/11? Seeking answers of these key questions are challenge and opportunity at the same time. 

ANALYSIS:

The sole purpose of any national security policy or response strategy is to secure the nation by making sure that no security incident takes place and if one occurs the policy or strategy must ensure prevention of such incident in future. Such policy making demands a multi-pronged mindset which encompasses all the dynamics of any particular incident like identifying elements behind it, tactics and more importantly the root causes. 

13/11 was outcome of the policy of 'execution of terrorists' instead of 'prosecution of terrorists' without spending any time on ascertaining the terrorists mindset and their causes. This strategy was adopted by the US after 9/11. This strategy was flawed as it took away the entire process of justice. The US and allies began to label individuals, factions, organizations and even states as terrorists and began execution process all by themselves without any trials like it was done in 2003 when Iraq was invaded by US/UK to remove Saddam Hussain under the false pretext of WMDs.

Now the question is, what France is going to do with/in Syria to hunt 13/11 perpetrators and masterminds belonging to ISIS?

Actually there is not much France can do right now militarily as it is already part of the US coalition in Syria against ISIS if Paris has decided to opt for a more aggressive military-oriented kinetic strategy, as is being hinted by the French leadership. Under any such strategy, France will intensify its military campaign against ISIS. But doing so without complete investigations would not only complicate the Middle East crisis and Syrian civil war but would also help the co conspirators hiding within EU to escape the justice and the EU's security would remain at peril. 

It is necessary for global peace that these accomplices of attackers are brought to justice. In order to achieve this, an intelligence based surgical approach will guarantee far higher probability of success as compared to waging a prolonged war in Syria. France must avoid indulging into a prolonged conflict in ME as this might be the real strategic plan of these ISIS terrorists. 

France must keep the lessons learned from failed and unfinished US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. French response must not be based on sheer sense of retribution like the US response was after 9/11. Last 14 years of WoT have exposed the vulnerabilities of this revenge-oriented strategic mindset.

A complete investigation of 13/11 terror attacks, finding its masterminds, facilitators, financiers and accomplices is critical for strengthening of international justice system. 

A senseless military response by the US after 9/11 only strengthened Al-Qaeda, ISIS and countless other violent entities in and around Middle East. This strategy has compromised the role of UN in global conflicts even further and as a consequence the world has become a less safer place.

Geopolitical Angle:

ISIS has claimed the responsibility of Paris attacks and has also made clear that these attacks are response to the French airstrikes in Syria against ISIS.

Looking at the initial French reaction over Paris terrorist attacks new concerns are becoming apparent on the geopolitical axis as well. The most important of these is prospects of a perpetuation of this war between ISIS and France. If France goes after ISIS without purging it completely from its own soil, there is a greater probability of another similar attack in France or elsewhere in EU. 

Another concern is new possible strategic alignment which might take place in Syria in fight against ISIS where Russia and the US alliance are not on the same page despite both claiming to fight against ISIS. Russian intervention in Syria is being considered as hindrance by the West in their plan to overthrow Asad's regime in Damascus. If the US along with France, under any military-oriented response strategy, decide to rearm Syrian rebels, which are being attacked by Russia, against both ISIS and Asad or send ground troops, Russia can response this move by putting more of its own military hardware in Syria to support Syrian army. Iran will also follow the line and most probably will amplify her involvement in Syria. This can easily lead to a dangerous stand off between the two Cold War rivals.

As both the US and Russia don't believe on each other's narratives yet both these global powers are involved in Syria without any UN mandate. In reality, this is beginning of a next cold war which does not look that cold considering the regional geopolitical dynamics where UN has no role. This has been proven in case of Middle East where first Iraq and then Syria were invaded by foreign forces unilaterally and the entire region is paying for this flawed approach and now Europe is also facing the heat.

The fate of ISIS, in Syria, remains uncertain but only certain certain fact is that, without proper investigations, trials and convictions, any decision of use force would push Syria in yet another brutal phase of violence and Syrian population will not be the only casualty in this chaos. Global peace, international institutions like UN, international law and justice will also become victim of this imbroglio. 

ISIS will continue to prevail because despite severe bombing from all the modern air powers its oil wells, refineries and export terminals which constitute the financial engine of ISIS, will stay protected like they have been so far and just to give excuses to both the US and Russia to keep their respective military forces in the region.
ISIS, Russia, US alliance and their proxies will continue to fight for many years to come creating more vacuums for more militant and violent terror groups in case these geopolitical considerations remains overlooked!

This is why it is critical for France to adopt a more robust and comprehensive response strategy than the current chaotic approach introduced by Washington after 9/11. This strategy must incorporate both kinetic and non-kinetic responses to ensure address the root causes of global terrorism.

Conclusion:

Terrorism can only be defeated by justice. Use of force as revenge as a strategy has failed already and is bound to be doomed in future as well. France must learn from failure of US policy on global terrorism. This incident is awful indeed but at the same time, it is also an opportunity for world leaders to sit together and contemplate an international framework to prosecute terrorists under the same law.

NATO's Response to Russian Hybrid Warfare: Is the Strategy Right?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

"We need a collective defence where Allied forces are more ready to deploy.

And better able to reinforce each other.

Faster.

Sharper.

And more mobile.

We must be able to deter any threat, from any direction.  Including hybrid warfare, and attacks that are aimed at our infrastructure -- our economies -- and our open societies.

This requires resolve.

And resources.

We have shown the resolve.

We are fundamentally changing NATO’s defence posture. To ensure we have the right forces -- in the right place -- at the right time."

This is an excerpt from speech of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the 51st Munich Security Conference, held from 6-8 Feb. in Munich, Germany. Complete text of his speech is available on official site on following link:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_117320.htm?selectedLocale=en

ANALYSIS:

Now when the NATO has officially accepted that age of Hybrid Warfare is here and have announced critical steps to combat the percieved threats from Russian Hybrid strategy. There are two aspects of his speech which demand a critical analysis.

1. As a response strategy, Mr, Stoltenberg has told that NATO has prescribed the  establishment of a "spearhead Force".
2. NATO has decided to established first command and control units in six eastern Allies: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania on war footings these units are ought to provide support to rapid deployment of spearhead force along with regular NATO troops.

Ostensibly, this seems some well devised and coordinated steps in deterring Russian threats which have been classified as 'Hybrid' by NATO's secretary general. But by looking at this NATO's response strategy, which overwhelmingly is Kinetic in nature, it would be prudent to contemplate if these steps are really adequate response to Moscow's aggressive actions in Ukraine, Baltic and other parts of Eastern Europe. Hybrid tactics in their nature are complex and compounded with more focus on Non-Kinetic tactics than Kinetic means. Hybrid strategy includes implementation of multiple conventional, sub conventional. economic, psychological and political tactics simultaneously in order to create more options for own state while at the squeezing the space for opponent in all three decisive battlefields of Hybrid War, as defined by former US Army officer Col. Jack McCuen i.e.

1. Physical Conflict zone & its population; 
2. Home front (Own Population) 
3. International community. 

NATO's strategy, so far, does not cater the delicacies related to dynamics of war which affect directly local and international population. NATO nations just ended one of their longest war in Afghanistan last year and now yet another intense war is lurking around the corner. Most of the troops and member nations are still not clear why they were in Afghanistan and what this prolonged war there has achieved. It can be argued that NATO did respond with non-kinetic measures when economic sanctions were imposed over Russia but in hindsight they, evidently, not only proved ineffective but rather counter-productive.

But question, remains why NATO considers Russian threats as 'Hybrid' in the first place? Latest reference to Russian overtures being Hybrid was made by former NATO secretary general Andres Fogh Rasmussen, who warned that "Russia may use "hybrid war" methods in Baltics to test NATO solidarity" while giving an interview to a UK daily. "There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test NATO's Article 5," Rasmussen said during the interview while referring to the solidarity clause of the North Atlantic Treaty that underpins collective security.  Interestingly, the above mentioned speech of current NATO secretary general also contains the reference to Hybrid nature of Russian threat in almost same sense. Intrinsic problem with NATO's kinetic strategy is that it is devoid of any approach to address the real target of Russian hybrid war i.e. "Solidarity" within NATO. Fear of Red Bear may work for sometime, but with a growing Euro-Zone crisis, asking for more defense funds and spending, making more aggressive military oriented strategies and inability to finish ongoing conflicts will eventually damage NATO's solidarity as Putin has in his mind.

In NATO not all the nations have luxury of spending more on defense right now and this new Kinetic strategy is certainly going to put lots of pressure on stable European economies like Germany and France. By looking at this strategy it seems that NATO perceived Russian hybrid threats posed to 'Sovereignty' of EU instead of 'Solidarity' of its defense alliance which guards European sovereignty but once its solidarity compromised, many East European nations will be 'hoping' for peace. Putin's timing of igniting Ukraine is also an intriguing aspect of this whole crisis. Prolonged economic crisis of Europe, shortness of resources due to budgetary cuts on defense in EU and psychological stress of prolonged deployment in war zones of Afghanistan and other parts are being masterly exploited by Putin and NATO's response is more military oriented that is going to exacerbate all of these nuisances within Europe and at the same time provoking Russia even more with deployment of forces in Baltics and Russian neighbors. This is not how an alliance keeps its solidarity intact, this is how an alliance prepare for a war. If NATO is doing so. Someone there must go through history to all the Western invaders who entered the Russia in the past. And this is the point when many of the European states would start to look at their own interest irrespective to what NATO wants. And this is exactly what Putin is striving for!    

Geopolitics of Pipelines and Energy Wars!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Many analysts around the world has been caught by surprise when, during his visit to Turkey, Russian President Putin announced to stop South Stream gas pipeline project which was to be built through Black Sea, around Ukraine, to Eastern Europe with multi billion dollar investment by major gas production and distribution firms. According to the Russian gas production giant Gazprom, major investor in the plan, the route of this planned gas pipeline was to run from Eastern Russia to Balkans through beneath the Black Sea, avoiding volatile Ukrainian territory, to Germany after passing through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungry etc. Major Russian goal through this pipeline was to follow the strategy to diversify the gas supply routes to the Europe.

South Stream pipeline Route ( Soruce: Gazprom)

According to the Western analysts, the ambitious project became the casualty of Ukrainian crisis and its demise shows the limits of Moscow's energy bullying. This analysis stems from the perception that the construction of South Stream pipeline would have given Moscow more leverage to demand concessions from the government in Kiev, which is seeking closer ties with Europe. It is worth noticing that Gazprom was a major investor in the project investing more than 50% of total cost. This was conceived in EU as a Russian attempt to monopolize the gas supply to Eastern rim of Europe.  On the other hand, Russian sources and analysts believe that the project was doomed by EU.

“If Europe does not want to implement the project, then it won’t be implemented. We will refocus our energy resources to other parts of the world,” Putin said on Monday in the Turkish capital, Ankara, after a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This decision by Preisdent Putin has stirred a heated debate within EU as well. James Henderson of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, believes that countries on Eastern rim of Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary) are pretty exposed to a energy crisis if Ukrainian conflict escalates. Putin may be trying to fracture the discussion within the EU,” Henderson says.

Andras Deak, an associate fellow at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, told Bloomberg News that "the scrapping of South Stream complicates the region’s energy security, making it all the more dependent on the Ukrainian pipeline. The EU and the IMF effectively will have to finance Ukraine’s gas bill now, if they want to make sure that gas keeps flowing through Ukraine to Europe.”

So how does this Russian decision is actually going to affect the regional energy security and geopolitics? Is it really a European win and a Russian lose? Or Russia is playing her cards more wisely on grand chessboard?

ANALYSIS:

This decision of abandoning the gas pipeline project seems inevitable one considering the contentious Russian-EU diplomatic ties over Ukrainian conflict. Ostensibly, it seems that the scrapping of South Stream would haunt Russian interests more than East European states (at least in short to mid term span), but a holistic analysis of this decision in context of bigger geopolitical picture demands a more closer examination of all the factors critical to the regional diplomacy.

European analysts believe that the main reason behind canceling the project is mainly economic and not political. Ruble has slided more than 22% against US Dollars during recent months causing US$90-100 Billions to the Russian economy. This explains why many Western analysts believe that Putin has caught in a perfect geopolitical storm due to its aggressive intervention in Ukraine. Coming out of this situation would not be easy for Moscow without making a compromise on Ukraine. But this Western analysis and narrative does not explains this decision in context of bigger picture of regional geopolitics.

By looking at the Western analyses, it seems that to overcome the financial shock, caused by Western sanctions, Putin is taking some immediate steps. After losing close ally like Germany, it would be difficult for Moscow to compensate the lost ground on economic front in short period of time. To make the matters worse, Russia is in no position to expand its Eurasian energy integration infrastructure towards South through Central Asian States (CAS) as the strategic sand has shifted and one of the major Cold War era Russian ally in South Asia, (India) has become the US strategic partner. Apart from that, CAS want to expand their own energy grid towards South (TAPI pipeline is vivid manifestation) and after that, India and Pakistan would be able to meet their energy demands from this pipeline.


But actually, Putin's decision was not irrational or illogical as Western analysts are trying to paint it.

Russia had already secured the huge Chinese energy market for herself before announcing the abandonment of South Stream. Earlier last month, Russia and China entered into a strategic energy partnership (worth $400 Billion). Apart from that, Russia has announced to built the gas pipeline to Balkans via a new route passing through Turkey.

Apart from that, Putin has outplayed the West on economic front by evading European and American project in Ukraine which was part of encirclement policy of Washington against Moscow. Putin rendered the plans hatched to cage the red bear in Russian mainland using Baltic States and Ukraine into quixotic dreams.

Despite the fact that till the recent deal with China and Turkey manifests into reality, the Russian economy would stay under stress there is no Soviet era like threat to Russian economy. This short term stress explains why National Bank of Russia had to cut its growth forecast for next year to zero sighting the decline in oil prices and Ruble's decline against Dollar. But believing that this stress would dent Russian economy in serious way is nothing more than a fantasy. In order to keep the Russian energy sector alive, the China-Russia deal was secured despite a heavy cost of accepting Chinese influence in Russian energy sector. Due to this deal, Russian oil & gas production company, OAO Rosneft, would sell a 10% stake in a Siberian unit to state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. One can argue that Chinese influence on the Russian policy making is increasing and this compromise by Russia is a manifestation of that. But for Russia, through this arrangement, Chinese would be providing much needed investment to the Russian energy sector. A natural strategic alliance between Beijing and Moscow is in making where former is securing its energy supplies by securing latter's economy.

Lowering the prices of oil failed to work the way it was expected. US-Saudi nexus kept the production of oil  at same oil while dropped the prices to dent the Russian economy but that hasn't work to required extent so far and in future it will not because unlike Iran, apart from oil, Russians are principle suppliers of gas to major part of Europe and the entire hoopla of ending the threat of monopolization of European gas supplies by eliminating the South Stream is a big hoax considering the fact that Russia is still biggest supplier of gas to Europe via Nord Stream pipeline which runs under the Baltic Sea from  Vyborg in the Russian Federation to Greifswald in Germany. 

Nord Stream Pipeline - Major Energy supply route to Germany and Western Europe

This makes it clear that the entire media buzz about the Russian economic and political isolation is nothing more than a well coordinated propaganda. The fact that Russian banks are buying the physical currency like Gold from all over the world which in the long run is going to support Russian currency against US dollars which is rapidly losing its value against gold.

A quiet aspect of this energy war in Eurasia is how Turkish geography would become more relevant in the regional geopolitics. If Russian plans to expand the gas pipeline to Greece via Turkey materializes smoothly, the Bulgarian resistance to South Stream would be another futile European endeavor and by looking at the recent developments, this possibility is not a distinct one!   

Russians, Americans and Middle East!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The contours of Russian future policy towards the Middle East and the US were made clear by Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov’s, address to the UN annual session. He raised concerns over the current US policy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and proposed a new inclusive and academic approach to address the problem.

“We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the longstanding conflicts should be examined, primarily between Arab nations and Israel."

He also pointed out longstanding issue of Palestine as the core reason behind the regional unrest.

“The absence of settlement of the Palestinian issue over several decades remains, as it is widely recognized as one of the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more and more new Jihadists.”

 Most importantly, he raised some serious concerns over Obama’s new Syrian strategy against ISIS which rely on airstrikes and using local rebels against ISIS.

“We warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed himself an enemy of [Syrian President] Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other ‘fellow travellers’ seeking the change of regime, including ISIS, which today is in the focus of our attention.”

Analysis:

This is something we don't often see from Russians. A diplomatic assault against the entire narrative of the US about ISIS. Washington never consulted with UN about attack on Syria and the reasons for not doing so are also obvious. In the presence of China and Russia, every move to seek a US planned military intervention would have vetoed. Reasons behind relying more on regional allies than on NATO are also obvious. The US and Europe don’t want to face any retaliatory actions by remnants of ISIS even if they succeeded in crushing the main body of this outfit. Apart from this obvious reason, inclusion of Islamic states is critical as it provides a moral and religious narrative in support of this fight against ISIS. Recent verdict by 100 top Muslim scholars is being consider a big moral victory for ongoing campaign against ISIS.

But still this military campaign is against the international law and norms as it has no UN mandate and is pursued under a pretext which is often challenged on the geopolitical grounds. This argument that whatever is transpiring in the Middle East, including the rise of entities like ISIS, is manifestation of geopolitical maneuvering has its own merits. According to the critics of the US policy, this is where the Russians are taking moral high ground in a bid to make the legitimacy of the entire anti-ISIS campaign questionable particularly after Obama's over-militarized strategy for Syria.

For now, the US and allies have a strong pretext of attacking ISIS in Syria and Russians are not in position to do anything more than using diplomatic means and international relations norms to question the legitimacy of Obama's new war in Syria. But Washington has already played that card preemptively "denouncing Russian aggression in Europe" which led Russians to consider cease fire in Ukraine and now Moscow is trying to rectify her mistakes but at the same time cannot allow NATO to expand too close to its borders. But that concern is not immediate one. Till Russia and Ukraine reach a settlement there would be no serious challenge to the US campaign in Syria. The scenario is changing fast in Ukraine as an initial cease fire has been reached which includes formation of a buffer zone. Question is, what if this new US campaign in Syria turns into another protracted war just like Iraq and Afghanistan something accepted even by the State Department as real possibility? What if Russia give her Ukrainian adventure a quick closure?

If that happens one thing is certain that Russian response to American interventionism against Moscow's allies would not remain confined to diplomatic and media overtures. From recent statements of Russian foreign minister it looks like Moscow is looking for a closure in Ukraine and European sanctions against Russia are also driving Moscow to look for a settlement in Ukraine. Despite these sanctions, Russians are well aware of the limitations of NATO. Almost entire Eastern Europe depend onRussian energy supplies particularly in winters. US cannot push too far with sanctions against Russia. This limits US diplomatic and political options against the Russian overtures. 

In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.

On the other hand, any prolonged war in the Middle East would dent the US narrative. Civilian casualties would escalate as Washington is going to rely too much on airstrikes, at least in initial stages of war. The US faced international embarrassment over killings of innocent civilians in FATA region of Pakistan despite the fact that all the governments in Islamabad actually never resisted the US drone strikes. In the presence of a hostile government in Syria, it would be even more challenging for the US and her Gulf allies to justify each and every air strike and still ending the war soon. Any attack on Syrian military infrastructure would complicate the problem further, a scenario Washington would like to avoid but not sure for how long. By looking at the strategic flux the region is going through, one thing is certain that the chaos in Middle East is certainly a manifestation of international geopolitics and is bound to be compounded in coming weeks and months!  

Eurasian Economic Boom & Geopolitics - China’s Land Bridge to Europe: The China-Turkey High Speed Railway

F. William Engdahl

The prospect of an unparalleled Eurasian economic boom lasting into the next Century and beyond is at hand. The first steps binding the vast economic space are being constructed with a number of little-publicized rail links connecting China, Russia, Kazakhstan and parts of Western Europe. It is becoming clear to more people in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia including China and Russia that their natural tendency to build these markets faces only one major obstacle: NATO and the US Pentagon’s Full Spectrum Dominance obsession.  Rail infrastructure is a major key to building vast new economic markets across Eurasia. China and Turkey are in discussions to build a new high-speed railway link across Turkey. If completed it would be the country's largest railway project ever, even including the pre-World War I Berlin-Baghdad Railway link. The project was perhaps the most important agenda item, far more so than Syria during talks in Beijing between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Chinese leadership in early April.