Truth Frequency Radio
Sep 05, 2014

Ukraine, Separatists Agree On Cease-Fire; EU May Suspend Sanctions



While we had grown weary of trashed truces and snapped cease-fires in Israel, it appears, according to Interfax, that Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine (having gained notably over the army in recent days) have agreed a cease-fire:


Great news, especially for Merkel (and Hollande) who has already come out and noted that the cease-fire means EU could suspend sanctions (saving face and avoiding some further escalation). The question is – how much of Putin’s 7-point-peace-plan will Ukraine acquiesce to? If any?

As WaPo notes,

Poroshenko did not specifically address the “Putin plan,” as it was dubbed by the Kremlin, but he said that the time had come to end the conflict.


“The first task is peace,” Poroshenko said in a statement. “Today at 5 a.m. I spoke to President Putin about how we can stop this horrible process. There is no denying that people must stop dying.”

As The BBC reports,

Ukrainian President says preliminary protocol to a ceasefire agreement has been signed in Minsk. Hope that ceasefire might start later


As DPA adds,

Ukrainian government representatives and leaders of the pro-Russian separatists in the country’s east sign a bilateral ceasefire agreement that goes into force later Friday, the Interfax news agency reports exclusively.


The 14-point agreement also regulates the monitoring of the ceasefire and prisoner exchanges. It was signed after almost two hours of talks in the Belarusian capital Minsk.

The self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic has confirmed the ceasefire agreement on its official Twitter account.


European leaders are happy (for now)


But as Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky notes,

“All these sanctions were like poultices for a dead man,” a distraught Yatsenyuk said today. “They did not help.” He called for the West to freeze Russia’s assets and financial transactions to force it to withdraw. The West, however, is unlikely to go that far. The sanctions have already contributed to economic contraction in Germany, and Europe cannot afford much more pain. Military aid is not an option: There is no country in the world where voters would back a war with Russia.


The Western world will probably wiggle out of its moral dilemma by blaming Poroshenko for being deaf to Russia’s legitimate concerns about preserving Ukraine’s status as a buffer state. No matter how unfair that sounds, Ukraine is now faced with the necessity of making concessions to Putin. It will take some time to sink in, but help of the kind Kiev really needs is probably not coming. Unless Poroshenko finds it in himself to bargain, eastern Ukraine may well end up a Russian-controlled no man’s land like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. There is no face-saving solution for anyone anymore.

* * *

Poroshenko full statement:

My international negotiations in Brussels and Minsk demonstrated a powerful request for peaceful political-diplomatic settlement of the conflict in the Donbas. The same mood dominated during my meetings with global leaders at the NATO Summit in Wales.


The entire world strives for peace, the entire Ukraine strives for peace, including millions of Donbas residents.


The highest value is human life. We must do everything possible and impossible to terminate bloodshed and put an end to people’s suffering.


Taking into account the call for ceasefire of President of Russia Vladimir Putin addressed to the heads of illegal armed groups of the Donbas and the signature of the protocol at the meeting of Trilateral contact group on the implementation of the Peace plan of the President of Ukraine, I order the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to cease fire starting from 18:00, September 5.


I also instruct the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to ensure jointly with the OSCE an efficient international control over the compliance with the ceasefire regime which must be exclusively bilateral.


I hope that these agreements, including ceasefire and liberation of hostages, will be strictly observed.

*  *  *

Extend the process with no further sanctions until the winter, then Russia is in charge and holds all the leverage… perhaps that’s why the market is not exuberantly rallying on this apparent de-escalation.


Grad shelling filmed outside Mariupol as ceasefire deadline closes

Russian General Calls for Preemptive Nuclear Strike Doctrine Against NATO

Is This Putin’s Ukraine Strategy?


The West is afraid of a major war and Putin is exploiting that,” says one former Kremlin adviser, adding that “his end goal is a Ukraine that is a buffer state between Russia and the West.” After the recent rebel offensive, it’s now militarily possible to gain full control of Donetsk and Luhansk and to create a ‘land bridge’ to Crimea, and “without help, Russian troops can roll ever-deeper into Ukraine.” As Bloomberg reports, Vladimir Putin will continue his shadow war until he’s created quasi statelets in Ukraine’s easternmost regions with veto power over the country’s future, five current and former Russian officials and advisers said.


As Bloomberg summarizes, Putin’s strategy appears to be…

[He] won’t settle for less than broad autonomy for Ukraine’s mainly Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, including the right to reject key decisions at the national level such as joining NATO, according to the people.


Putin is willing to wait until November, after Ukraine elects a new parliament and the heating season starts, to ensure his goals are met, in part by extending a natural gas cutoff to force a compromise if needed, one official said on condition of anonymity after speaking with Putin last week.



“Putin’s goal is to force Ukraine to its knees,” said Stanislav Belkovsky, a Kremlin adviser during Putin’s first term who heads the Institute for National Strategy in Moscow. “He wants a federal structure to put part of the country under Moscow’s informal control and block NATO membership.”

Last week, Putin warned against any “aggression” toward Russia, noting the country remains “one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers.”

“The West is afraid of a major war and Putin is exploiting that,” said Belkovsky, the former Kremlin adviser. “The point is to frighten the West and Ukraine into thinking he’ll take Kiev and change the map of Europe unless he gets what he wants. He’s bluffing.”


Bluff or not, Putin’s strategy is clearly working, according to Dmitri Trenin, head of the Carnegie Moscow Center.


“A cease-fire is an important victory for Russia,” Trenin said by phone. “If it actually goes through, Russia will be bargaining from a position of strength. Putin’s strategy is evolving. His end goal is a Ukraine that is a buffer state between Russia and the West.”

However, both the U.S. and the EU have ruled out military intervention in the current conflict.

That and the failure of sanctions to influence Russian behavior has given Putin a “free hand,” according to Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based political risk research and consulting firm.


“For Putin, you have to feel that you’re not going to be challenged seriously,” Bremmer said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Aug. 28.

The endgame?

Because of that, Ukraine’s only way out is to admit defeat, said Arbatov, the former deputy chairman of the Russian parliament’s Defense Committee.


“The longer Ukraine waits, the more territory it will lose and the harsher demands it will face,” Arbatov said.

*  *  *

So that’s all very ominous for the West. However, there is a different side of this coin…

From Grandmaster to Grand Farce (via Gavekal’s James Barnes)

At first glance, Vladimir Putin’s strongman status was confirmed by the release of a seven point peace plan yesterday that reputedly had him call for Ukrainian troops to withdraw from areas of their own country. Such a demand followed Putin’s demand over the weekend that Kiev begin independence talks for southeastern Ukraine. These are the new realities that NATO leaders must chew over during a summit that starts today and is being billed as the most significant in 25 years. However, we would demur at the notion of a new leviathan in the Kremlin. In reality, Putin’s hugely risky escalation in eastern Ukraine was driven by a realization that his proxies had failed and Russian prestige was set for a battering.


Flushed with the glow of easy success in Crimea, Putin openly backed separatist rebels who were both militarily incompetent and enjoyed scant sympathy among most of eastern Ukraine’s population. His biggest mistake was concluding that Ukraine would cease to operate as a unitary state and so lack the will to fight. All this explains why the separatist rebels were on the brink of defeat ten days ago, resulting in a hastily arranged Russian invasion. Having cast himself as defender of the greater Russian Volk, defeat in Ukraine would have fatally weakened Putin’s credibility.


Putin may have staved off an immediate defeat, but the stakes have undoubtedly been hugely raised. As we see it there are three broad scenarios that could play out in the next few months:


Scenario #1: Moscow and Kiev reach a comprehensive peace agreement that provides autonomy for eastern Ukraine and protection for Russian speaking citizens, while at the same time allowing the country to pursue a closer economic relationship with the European Union. Membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be explicitly ruled out.


Scenario #2: The status quo holds and Russian soldiers advance no further. A frozen conflict develops akin to the situation in South Ossetia or Transnistria. Small scale fighting aimed at consolidating Russian gains may flare up, but this does not escalate into a larger conflict.


Scenario #3: A full invasion of Ukraine by Russia with the army operating openly to establish, at a minimum, an independent buffer region.


For the moment, Scenario #1 seems highly unlikely. Both sides would need to make major concessions and with Ukrainian parliamentary elections being held on October 26, President Petro Poroshenko will face intense pressure not to give an inch to the separatists. It is also unlikely that Putin would countenance deeper economic integration with Europe as this would frustrate his Eurasian Customs Union.


Scenario #3 also seems unlikely, for despite bellicose talk of taking Kiev in two weeks a full scale Russian invasion would be ruinously costly in blood and treasure. Despite Moscow’s claim that international sanctions will be ineffective in swaying domestic opinion, it should be remembered that Putin’s popularity has been built on rising living standards and sound economic management which followed the chaotic Yeltsin years. For all the talk of becoming a “war time” president, we doubt that Putin will abandon the promise of a Russian dream of rising middle class prosperity.


The most likely outcome is an inconclusive Scenario #2 with the emergence of an unstable buffer region in eastern Ukraine, blighted by low intensity conflict. To be sure, this is a more difficult conflict to contain than others in the Caucasus since Kiev has more capability to project force and the frontline is not contiguous or divided neatly by terrain features. However, the deterrent effect of huge costs for both sides in the event of a full-scale conflict should be enough to avoid Armageddon.


Longer term, the situation looks worse for Putin. Russia may have already lost the Ukrainian people; as recently as 2011 84% of the population held a favorable view of Russia with only 11% holding a negative one. As of a few months ago, 60% of Ukrainians viewed Russia badly with only 35% having a positive view. Considering that Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian civilization, Putin looks to have lost the PR war.


Russia may also face a resurgent NATO. Already NATO has said it will open bases in former Warsaw pact countries. A greater risk is that Russia’s actions in Ukraine finally shakes Europe out of its defense lethargy and induces rearmament. Despite the eurozone’s malaise, this may trigger realization that liberal states cannot rely on the US defense shield forever.


Most damagingly for Russia, its ‘special’ relationship with Germany may have ended. Since the Berlin Wall fell the integration of Russia into western economic, political and social norms has been a cornerstone of German politics. Now, however, Berlin is taking the tougher line over Ukraine, even while other European states vacillate over the economic fallout. Angela Merkel seems to have decided that a long-term stand on values is more important than short-term economic pain caused by sanctions. The German-Russian relationship seems to have ruptured and the impact on Russia’s economic modernization will be high.

*  *  *

In the meantime, US and Europe are agreeing on more sanctions for Russia


So more costs for Europe…


Jon Stewart Mocks Obama’s Ukraine Response, But Won’t Expose The Fake ‘Satellite Images’


 Yeah, Jon, about those satellite images…

‘Most convincing evidence’: Russian embassy trolls NATO with toy tanks

Russia Today

Some of Russia’s diplomats have joined a digital diplomacy row as they trolled NATO by “leaking” on Twitter the alliance’s “most convincing evidence” of Russian troops’ alleged presence in Ukraine.

The Twitter account @RussEmbassyUAE, which is the official Twitter of the Russian Embassy in the United Arab Emirates, posted a picture of tiny toy trucks, tanks and armored vehicles all lined up on the ground, with the words: “#NATO’s latest evidence of #Russian armor invading #Ukraine has been leaked! Seems to be the most convincing ever!”


Users on the social media network seem to have liked the “toy tweet” – the picture was retweeted over 1,000 times and nearly 500 people added it to their “favorites.”

This is evidently a response to NATO’s release of satellite images described as a “proof” of Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine.

A handout photo provided on August 28, 2014 by DigitalGlobe via NATO allegedly shows Russian military units moving in a convoy formation with self-propelled artillery in the area of Krasnodon, Ukraine (AFP Photo / HO / DigitalGlobe)

A handout photo provided on August 28, 2014 by DigitalGlobe via NATO allegedly shows Russian military units moving in a convoy formation with self-propelled artillery in the area of Krasnodon, Ukraine (AFP Photo / HO / DigitalGlobe)

The images were ridiculed by Russia’s Defense Ministry, while an alliance of seven former US intelligence officers – the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) – said it was on a par with the“same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the US-led attack on Iraq.”

A digital “war” of maps and pictures first started on Twitter between Canada and Russia on August 27, when @Canada at NATO tweeted a map showing two bordering states – one part was labeled “Russia” while another, Ukraine, was labeled as “not Russia.”

rt.com_2014-09-05_13-53-40Their Russian counterparts, @Russians at NATO, have hit back with their own map, where they clearly marked the disputed Crimea region as Russian territory.

rt.com_2014-09-05_13-54-31This recent trolling of NATO coincides with the military alliance’s meeting in Wales, where Russian troops’ alleged presence in Ukraine is one of the key topics.


President Obama’s Post-NATO, Putin-Punishing, ISIS-Igniting Press Conference – Live Feed


After two solid days of ‘discussions’ at a gold course in Wales, President Obama is ready to make some new comments this morning. With a cease-fire agreed in Ukraine, and no ISIS beheadings yet today, we wonder where his ire will be pointed (or perhaps it’s back to the Republicans’ fault we had such a weak jobs print?)…


President Obama is due to speak at 1130ET… tune in accordingly

Is The Ceasefire a Diversion So That NATO Can Build Up Forces To Attack Russia?

Heavy fighting precedes reported truce between Ukraine, separatists

The agreement was reached in talks between his government, Russian officials, pro-Russia separatists and European mediators in the Belarus capital of Minsk. Heavy fighting in the southern city of Mariupol preceded the announced deadline for the cease-fire to take effect.

“Human life has the highest value and we must do everything possible and impossible to stop the bloodshed and put an end to human suffering,” Poroshenko said in a statement posted on the official presidential website.

Poroshenko said that he had ordered Ukrainian troops to cease fire at 6 p.m. following an appeal from Russia President Vladimir Putin for leaders of the rebellion in eastern Ukraine to do the same.

The Ukrainian leader told reporters in Wales, where he was attending a NATO summit, that the agreement included “12 practical steps for establishing peace and stability,” but he did not lay out what those measures would be.

“Now it is very important that this cease-fire lasts long and during this cease-fire we continue the political dialogue that can bring the peace and stability on Donbass,” said Poroshenko, referring to the region of eastern Ukraine where the fighting has been intense.

A spokesperson for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which helped negotiate the truce, was reached by the Los Angeles Times by phone but also would not confirm details of the deal.

The Associated Press reported that Alexander Zakharchenko, the rebel leader from the Donetsk region, said the cease-fire would “allow us to save not only civilians’ lives, but also the lives of the people who took up arms in order to defend their land and ideals.”

But Igor Plotnitsky, the insurgent leader for the Luhansk region, told reporters that “this doesn’t mean that our course for secession is over” — a statement reflecting the deep divisions that threaten to derail peace efforts.

The conflict broke early this year when three months of protests drove pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovich from office and Russia subsequently seized Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Separatists in the east, which has a large population of Russian-speaking citizens, then launched a rebellion against the new Ukrainian government, seeking independence or ties to Russia.

Moscow has denied lending support to the separatists, though Russian mercenaries were long reported among their ranks and, more recently, NATO said columns of Russian troops had crossed the border into southern Ukraine to back up the separatist fighters.

The cease-fire announcement came on a day of heavy fighting near Mariupol, a city on the Sea of Azov that, if it fell, could help Russia gain a land bridge to Crimea. Overnight and early in the morning, Russian troops bombarded Ukrainian positions with artillery and missile fire. In the early afternoon, Ukrainian tank units supported by the infantry pushed back the attackers, a Ukrainian militia commander said.

“Both sides are interested in the cease-fire so they can regroup, exchange prisoners and even up the front line to avoid surprise moves from adversaries,” said Andrei Beletsky, commander of the militia’s Azov Battalion, whose troops took part in the offensive. “But the truce will not last long as their separatist demands are unacceptable and the only way to resolve the knot will be to cut it once again by sheer military force.

“We are ready for this kind of fight as we have proved today that we can not only efficiently defend our land but also launch an offensive on the seemingly superior foreign armed foreign force,” he said.

The fighting near Mariupol stopped as the 6 p.m. deadline arrived.


Ukraine crisis: Nato agrees major troop deployment to guard against Russian aggression

Nigel Morris, UK Independent

A 4,000-strong Nato rapid reaction force – initially including 1,000 British troops – is to be set up in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and could be deployed within two to five days of any crisis emerging in eastern or central Europe.

David Cameron said Britain will take the lead in the “spearhead” force, which would be headed by senior UK military officers. It will be based in Poland and is due to be fully operational by the end of next year.

The force was agreed by political and military leaders at the Nato summit in Newport, South Wales today. It will sit alongside an existing Nato response force which takes longer to deploy.

In addition, Britain is contributing 3,500 troops to a programme of Nato exercises in eastern Europe over the next 16 months. The alliance is also preparing to “pre-position” supplies of fuel and ammunition in bases in eastern Europe.

The decision to press ahead with the Nato deployments reflects unease in eastern European Nato member states – including Poland and the Baltic countries – about President Vladimir Putin’s expansionist ambitions.

It was finalised hours before the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who was received as a guest of honour at the Nato summit, announced a ceasefire had been reached in the east of the country.

Nato’s secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “This decision sends a clear message to any potential aggressor: should you even think of attacking an ally, you will be facing the whole alliance.”

Mr Cameron told his end of summit press conference: “No one will leave here with any doubt that our collective security is as strong as it has ever been. The Alliance is firmly committed to providing ongoing reassurance to our eastern Allies.”

He was speaking as European Union leaders in Brussels finalised the details of fresh sanctions against Russia. Similar measures are set to be announced by the American and Canadian governments.

They were expected to include restrictions on Russian energy, hi-tech and aerospace firms as well as further travel bans and asset freezes on figures close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr Cameron said existing sanctions were already having an impact on the Russian economy, adding: “At the end of the day, Russia needs the European Union and the United States more than the European Union and the United States needs Russia.”

The Prime Minister said the West stood ready to impose further sanctions if the ceasefire broke out and pro-Russian separatists continued their aggression.

“We should accept Ukraine’s territorial integrity. That’s why we have imposed the sanctions, that’s why we have piled on the pressure,” he said.


Russia Blasts NATO’s “Pre-Emptive Deployment” Plan For Undermining The Peace Process


As if like clockwork, on the heels of news from Russia of plans to shift their military doctrine towards pre-emptive reactions (and potential nuclear strikes), the NATO Summit has come out swinging with it’s own plan change:


Russia’s response – “not surprised” NATO is trying to dominate Europe, adding that “NATO plans undermine the Ukraine peace process.”

As Bloomberg reports,

U.K. General Adrian Bradshaw, NATO’s deputy supreme commander speaks to reporters at North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Newport, Wales.


NATO to assemble range of indicators and warnings that suggest when it’s time for some sort of preemptive deterrent deployment. It’s about making clear to potential adversaries “that engaging in offensive operations against NATO is not something they would wish to do”: Bradshaw


Bradshaw said not yet clear when spearhead force will be operational. “We would expect a force of this nature to be achieving initial operating capability within a matter of a number of months, maybe a year. But building the capability to its full spectrum of required capabilities would require a certain amount of time”

NATO added:


The Russian foreign ministry adds,



No sanctions rollback

BBC News

Meanwhile, the EU and US are expected to announced enhanced sanctions on Russia, targeting banking, energy and defence sectors.

US President Barack Obama said the ceasefire had been agreed because of sanctions imposed on Russia.

Measures against Russia would be reviewed in line with the implementation of the ceasefire, which he said would be a very long process.


Russian General Demands Preemptive Nuclear Strike Doctrine Against NATO

While NATO is contemplating its existential purpose in a world where the Cold War has suddenly come back with a vengeance, and the military alliance has found itself woefully unprepared to deal with a Russia which no longer accepts the supremacy of the west (appropriately enough NATO is doing this on a golf course) Russia is also strategizing, only instead of issuing “sharply-worded catchphrases” and hashtags, a Russian general has called for Russia to revamp its military doctrine, last updated in 2010, to clearly identify the U.S. and its NATO allies as Moscow’s enemy number one. That in itself is not disturbing: we reported as much yesterday and is merely more rhetorical posturing. Where things, however, get very problematic is that the general demands that Russia spell out the conditions under which the country would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the 28-member military alliance.

Moscow Times reports that Russia’s military doctrine, a strategy document through which the government interprets military threats and crafts possible responses, is being revised in light of threats connected to the Arab Spring, the Syrian civil war and the conflict in Ukraine, the deputy chief of the Kremlin’s security council told RIA Novosti on Tuesday.

That however is the soundbite for politically correct media purposes. Because within the Defense Ministry there are voices calling for different priorities.

“First and foremost, the likely enemy of Russia should be clearly identified in this strategic document, something absent from the 2010 military doctrine. In my view, our primary enemy is the U.S. and the North Atlantic bloc,” General Yury Yakubov, a senior Defense Ministry official, was quoted as saying by Interfax.

If this sounds like a statement taken right out of the (first) Cold War, one involving the whole nuclear arms race, is because it is. The 2010 doctrine defines NATO expansion as a threat to Russian national security and reaffirms its right to use nuclear weapons in a defensive posture, but stops far short of declaring NATO as Moscow’s primary adversary and laying preemptive nuclear strike scenarios on the table, a posture unmistakably reminiscent of the Cold War.

At the basis of this dramatic escalation is none other than Russia’s stated response to what it perceives as a clear expansionary NATO threat.

Yakubov said the information war being waged over the crisis in Ukraine — where the West accuses Russia of arming separatists fighting the government in Kiev — and NATO’s announcement that it would establish a permanent military presence in Eastern Europe have validated earlier fears that the alliance’s claims of non-aggression toward Russia were insincere.

And the punchline: the general added that special attention should be paid to integrating the functions of the newly created Air and Space Defense Forces with Russia’s land, sea and air based nuclear forces. “In addition, it is necessary to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a preemptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces,” he said.

One can be certain that this is precisely what Russia will do.

So what happens next?

Recall what former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said in November 2008 in his first presidential address to the Russian people: “Russia will deploy Iskander missile systems in its enclave in Kaliningrad to neutralize, if necessary, the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe.” An anti-ballistic missle system also known as NATO.

Which it did less than a year ago, long before the Ukraine civil war was headline news every day. This is what happened the last time Russia flexed its nuclear deterrence muscles, in November of 2013.

Russia has stationed missiles with a range of about 500 kilometers in its Kaliningrad enclave and along its border with the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Germany’s Bild-Zeitung reports, citing defense officials it didn’t identify. Satellite images show a “double-digit” amount of mobile units identified as SS-26 Stone in NATO code. Missiles were stationed within the past 12 months. SS-26 can carry conventional as well as nuclear warheads.

This is merely Russia being true to its warning word. From April 2012:

Moscow reiterated on Tuesday it may deploy Iskander theater ballistic missiles in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad that will be capable of effectively engaging elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Poland.


NATO members agreed to create a missile shield over Europe to protect it against ballistic missiles launched by so-called rogue states, for example Iran and North Korea, at a summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in 2010.


The missile defense system in Poland does not jeopardize Russia’s nuclear forces, Army General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said.


“However, if it is modernized…it could affect our nuclear capability and in that case a political decision may be made to deploy Iskander systems in the Kaliningrad region,” he said in an interview with RT television.


“But that will be a political decision,” he stressed. “So far there is no such need.”

A little over two years later, there is a need.

Which means forget “little green men” in Ukraine. Think massive Russian Iskander ICBM systems planted on the border with Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics and all across Russia Western border, and the furious screamfest this would waterfall into.

We can’t wait to see how algos will spin such pre-emptive steps to a very mushroom cloudy World War III…


Is This Why Obama Was “Noticeably Absent” During Yesterday’s NATO Meeting?


We are not exactly sure why Obama would be “noticeably absent” from the start of this week’s NATO-Ukraine commission (from The Hill):

President Obama was nowhere to be found during the beginning of a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine commission in Wales on Thursday.


Obama was “noticeably absent” from the start of the meeting, according to a White House pool report, although U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute was in attendance.

… but the following could provide some much needed clues (as we noted previously)


First this:




And then this: