In private speech BOLTON claims Trump's PRIMARY interest in TURKEY is "motivated by personal or business relationship" (6 sources heard the remarks)

Jul 2015
33,467
25,098
Florida
FOLLOW THE MONEY! This is a CRIMINAL PRESIDENCY used for the occupant to enrich himself and PUNISH ANYONE WHO GETS IN HIS WAY! Yes, I believe if he could he would KILL people. I've reached that threshold.

PS Erdogan is coming TOMORROW for a visit. Wonder if he is staying at TRUMP HOTEL.


Bolton suggests Trump's Turkey policy motivated by personal, financial interest: NBC

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 11/12/19 01:51 PM EST 476 - THE HILL




Former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly criticized President Trump's foreign policy last week, accusing Trump of being motivated primarily by personal or financial interests in his dealings with Turkey.

NBC News reported Tuesday that Bolton made the comment at a private gathering last week in a global investment event organized by Morgan Stanley, at which he also reportedly took shots at Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who remain White House aides.


NBC, citing people who heard the remarks, reported that Bolton said he believed Trump to be motivated by some personal or business relationship in Turkey, while questioning whether Trump should apply his business acumen to foreign policy.

His remarks come as Trump has faced heavy criticism for ordering a U.S. withdrawal from northern Syria, where Turkish forces have invaded Kurdish-held areas.

During Bolton's speech, the former national security adviser added that he kept a resignation letter ready in his desk for months before finally exiting the White House. He declined to comment to NBC News on that claim or others about his reported remarks/...

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...onal-financial





https://www.nbcnews.com › politics › donald-trump › private-speech-bolto...

10 hours ago - Then-national security adviser John Bolton, in the Oval Office on Aug. ... approach to U.S. policy on Turkey is motivated by personal or financial interests, ... his business acumen to foreign policy, saying such issues can't be ... that the arrangement presented “a little conflict of interest” should he be elected.
Bolton Suggested Trump's Turkey Decision Was Motivated by ...

https://www.thedailybeast.com › bolton-suggested-trumps-turkey-decision-...

7 hours ago - John Stanton ... Bolton blasted Trump's reluctance to impose economic sanctions on Turkey .... Everything you need to know today, from a variety of sources .... they are being trained by these great companies, the greatest companies in ... and testified against his former friend as part of his plea agreement.

Trump's Turkey policy 'motivated by personal or business ...

www.intellinews.com › trump-s-turkey-policy-motivated-by-personal-or-b...

6 hours ago - John Bolton, former national security advisor to Donald Trump, has suggested that the US president's approach to policy on Turkey is motivated by ... the arrangement presented “a little conflict of interest” should he be elected.

Bolton suggests Trump's Turkey policy motivated by personal ...

John Bolton lays into Trump's foreign policy approach in ...

https://www.axios.com › john-bolton-foreign-policy-trump-7eda51e6-670...

9 hours ago - Former national security adviser John Bolton suggested in a private speech ... chemistry with foreign leaders, including authoritarians like Turkish President ... If Trump gets re-elected, Bolton said the president could withdraw the ... was a prolific notetaker and would have more details on Trump's Ukraine ...Missing: arrangement ‎| ‎Must include: ‎arrangement
 
Jun 2014
64,777
39,641
Cleveland, Ohio
Bolton is just teasing with these crumbs, hoping to drive up sales of his book.

His observation -- that Trump has private business interests in Turkey and his policies in Syria are incomprehensible unless he is currying favor with Erdogan -- are not secret, insider information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Friday13
Jul 2019
2,761
2,709
Atlanta
Bolton is just teasing with these crumbs, hoping to drive up sales of his book.

His observation -- that Trump has private business interests in Turkey and his policies in Syria are incomprehensible unless he is currying favor with Erdogan -- are not secret, insider information.
Its an old complicate issue before Trump.

Fatigue and frustration aside, U.S. focus and engagement in Iraq remains critical to the national- and energy-security interests of the United States and its allies. Iraq has increased its oil production by more than half since 2012, and is set to be the world’s third-largest oil producer by 2030. Its proven natural gas reserves are enough to meet, for example, Germany’s present demand for 40 years.

Extracting and exporting those resources with the help of U.S. energy companies would produce wins on several fronts: reducing Europe’s and other markets’ energy dependence on Russia, further consolidating America’s energy security, and generating jobs and revenue for the United States. For Iraq, the cost-effective and environmentally responsible extraction of its natural resources would help secure the stability essential for that country’s future prosperity.

None of these gains are achievable, though, without consistent and direct U.S. support of Iraq’s state institutions and the country’s energy development, and without shepherding normalized relations between the capital in Baghdad and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil. A dispute in arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in Paris affords an exceptional opportunity for the United States to play an affirmative and decisive role in Iraq and, by extension, support U.S. allies in the region and in Europe.

The Dispute

The arbitration case, now in its fifth year, concerns the Iraq-Turkey Pipeline (ITP), also known as the Kirkuk-Ceyhan Pipeline. It is Iraq’s largest crude oil pipeline, allowing the country to export oil over 600 miles from two major oil fields near Kirkuk to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan in southern Turkey. The pipeline is owned jointly by the two countries and governed by a 1973 agreement.

The current row goes back to the spring of 2014, after Iraq’s Kurdish peshmerga forces had successfully driven back the fighters of the self-styled Islamic State, or ISIS, who had overrun much of northern Iraq the previous year. The peshmerga victory allowed the KRG to consolidate control over the plentiful oilfields surrounding Kirkuk, territory that has long been in dispute between the KRG and the central Iraqi government in Baghdad. The two governments also have long fought a political war over oil exports and revenues from northern Iraq, the primary victim being the languishing U.S.-brokered draft oil-and-gas law of 2007.

Bolstered by new export production from the Tawke and Taq Taq fields in 2014, KRG commenced with its pipeline transit absent permission or instruction from Baghdad. (The Iraqi army and state-backed irregulars retook Kirkuk in October 2017 in response to Iraqi Kurdistan’s independence referendum, thereby denying Erbil oil fields that had accounted for as much as 40 percent of KRGs pre-referendum exports.)

The KRG sold its first ITP-supplied oil to Turkish state oil firm BOTAS in May 2014, which then loaded it on a tanker bound for Israel. Baghdad immediately responded by filing a request for arbitration at the ICA against the Turkish government and BOTAS. Baghdad claimed that Ankara broke the terms of the 1973 agreement by allegedly taking, storing, and loading oil from Iraqi territory without the Iraqi government’s consent. Final hearings are set for this September, followed by a ruling within 90 days afterwards, per ICA procedure.

Arguments and Implications

While the ICA case is between Iraq and Turkey, the outcome will determine the breadth of Baghdad’s authority over oil and gas on KRG territory and whether the Kurdish region can continue to independently sell the oil produced in its territory. As of late 2018, the KRG reported exports of 400,000 barrels per day, with an increased capacity up to 1 million barrels. With additional infrastructure improvements, outflows could rise to 1.5 million.

Baghdad wants control of that revenue and that the proceeds be distributed based on an agreement with Erbil that has eluded the two governments since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Baghdad fears that a ruling in Turkey’s favor could give the KRG the kind of energy autonomy that would lead to outright political independence too.

continued

 
  • Like
Reactions: Madeline
Jul 2019
2,761
2,709
Atlanta
Its an old complicate issue before Trump.

Fatigue and frustration aside, U.S. focus and engagement in Iraq remains critical to the national- and energy-security interests of the United States and its allies. Iraq has increased its oil production by more than half since 2012, and is set to be the world’s third-largest oil producer by 2030. Its proven natural gas reserves are enough to meet, for example, Germany’s present demand for 40 years.

Extracting and exporting those resources with the help of U.S. energy companies would produce wins on several fronts: reducing Europe’s and other markets’ energy dependence on Russia, further consolidating America’s energy security, and generating jobs and revenue for the United States. For Iraq, the cost-effective and environmentally responsible extraction of its natural resources would help secure the stability essential for that country’s future prosperity.

None of these gains are achievable, though, without consistent and direct U.S. support of Iraq’s state institutions and the country’s energy development, and without shepherding normalized relations between the capital in Baghdad and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil. A dispute in arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in Paris affords an exceptional opportunity for the United States to play an affirmative and decisive role in Iraq and, by extension, support U.S. allies in the region and in Europe.

The Dispute

The arbitration case, now in its fifth year, concerns the Iraq-Turkey Pipeline (ITP), also known as the Kirkuk-Ceyhan Pipeline. It is Iraq’s largest crude oil pipeline, allowing the country to export oil over 600 miles from two major oil fields near Kirkuk to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan in southern Turkey. The pipeline is owned jointly by the two countries and governed by a 1973 agreement.

The current row goes back to the spring of 2014, after Iraq’s Kurdish peshmerga forces had successfully driven back the fighters of the self-styled Islamic State, or ISIS, who had overrun much of northern Iraq the previous year. The peshmerga victory allowed the KRG to consolidate control over the plentiful oilfields surrounding Kirkuk, territory that has long been in dispute between the KRG and the central Iraqi government in Baghdad. The two governments also have long fought a political war over oil exports and revenues from northern Iraq, the primary victim being the languishing U.S.-brokered draft oil-and-gas law of 2007.

Bolstered by new export production from the Tawke and Taq Taq fields in 2014, KRG commenced with its pipeline transit absent permission or instruction from Baghdad. (The Iraqi army and state-backed irregulars retook Kirkuk in October 2017 in response to Iraqi Kurdistan’s independence referendum, thereby denying Erbil oil fields that had accounted for as much as 40 percent of KRGs pre-referendum exports.)

The KRG sold its first ITP-supplied oil to Turkish state oil firm BOTAS in May 2014, which then loaded it on a tanker bound for Israel. Baghdad immediately responded by filing a request for arbitration at the ICA against the Turkish government and BOTAS. Baghdad claimed that Ankara broke the terms of the 1973 agreement by allegedly taking, storing, and loading oil from Iraqi territory without the Iraqi government’s consent. Final hearings are set for this September, followed by a ruling within 90 days afterwards, per ICA procedure.

Arguments and Implications

While the ICA case is between Iraq and Turkey, the outcome will determine the breadth of Baghdad’s authority over oil and gas on KRG territory and whether the Kurdish region can continue to independently sell the oil produced in its territory. As of late 2018, the KRG reported exports of 400,000 barrels per day, with an increased capacity up to 1 million barrels. With additional infrastructure improvements, outflows could rise to 1.5 million.

Baghdad wants control of that revenue and that the proceeds be distributed based on an agreement with Erbil that has eluded the two governments since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Baghdad fears that a ruling in Turkey’s favor could give the KRG the kind of energy autonomy that would lead to outright political independence too.

continued

Turkey and Russia share and interest in Turkstream whixh carriesgas to Europe when gas demand is flat. and there may NOT be enough capacity to keep the pressure up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madeline