U.S. President Barack Obama made a 3-day state visit to India during the last week of January 2015. It was his second visit to the country, and he was the first U.S. president to be chief guest to India's Republic Day celebrations. India took precautions by increasing security, increasing no-fly zones around the capital from 30 km to 40 km, cleaning the city, and temporarily dislocating street vendors. Citing security reasons, Obama skipped being the part of the traditional parade and brought his own Beast (limousine).

Expectations from Obama's visit were low, though the media touted the chemistry between the leaders. Obama called India a 'natural ally' and gave warning to Pakistan against supporting the terrorists. He seems to have conveniently 'forgotten' his own country's role in funding terrorist groups in Pakistan.

Deals signed during the visit included $4 billion of funds to boost new initiatives, an offer to support India's ambitious solar energy target, joint manufacturing of four relatively modest military products, exploring the development of two more high-end technologies, and setting up a task force for jointly developing three smart cities with a mandate of preparing the road map within three months.

From journalists' sleepless wanderings in the Minsk palace to "buckets of coffee" served to the leaders, RT has gathered most interesting moments from behind the scenes of the epic all-night Ukraine peace negotiations.

Hide-and-seek in the palace

Never short of self-pity after waiting 16-hours journalists re-positioned themselves as the true victims of the Ukrainian conflict.

Some consoled themselves with the assortment of delicacies and beverages, personally approved by former collective farm director, Aleksandr Lukashenko.

Judging by the report on RT I conclude that the Ukraine peace deal worked out in Minsk by Putin, Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko has little chance of success.

As Washington is not a partner to the Minsk peace deal, how can there be peace when Washington has made policy decisions to escalate the conflict and to use the conflict as a proxy war between the US and Russia?

The Minsk agreement makes no reference to the announcement by Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of US Army Europe, that Washington is sending a battalion of US troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces how to fight against Russian and rebel forces. The training is scheduled to begin in March, about two weeks from now. Gen. Hodges says that it is very important to recognize that the Donetsk and Luhansk forces "are not separatists, these are proxies for President Putin."

How is there a peace deal when Washington has plans underway to send arms and training to the US puppet government in Kiev?

Looking at the deal itself, it is set up to fail. The only parties to the deal who had to sign it are the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk break-away republics. The other signers to the Minsk deal are an OSCE representative which is the European group that is supposed to monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides, a former Ukrainian president Viktor Kuchma, and the Russian ambassador in Kiev. Neither the German chancellor nor the French, Ukrainian, and Russian presidents who brokered the deal had to sign it.

In other words, the governments of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia do not appear to be empowered or required to enforce the agreement. According to RT, "the declaration was not meant to be signed by the leaders, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said."

Our leaders are eager to escalate a conflict that could very easily spiral out of control. So why not embrace the inevitable?

A hundred years ago, the world "sleepwalked" into the First World War, the war that wiped out an entire generation of Europeans. Aren't we repeating the same sleepwalking march again, this time with even deadlier consequences? The recent baiting and bullying of Russia and the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine; the proposals in Congress to supply lethal military aid to Ukraine coupled with the Defense Secretary nominee's enthusiasm for such help, all indicate a major dysfunction of rationality.

Russia has been sending signals that it is not backing off from this conflict, that the situation in Ukraine is too important to its national security. Recent signals of Russia's resolve include its reformulation of its military doctrine that views NATO expansion into Russia's neighborhood as the major threat; and the view of US policy in Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia.

While some scholars and journalists point to the possibility, if not inevitability, of the all out war, major news outlets prefer to underreport the depth of the conflict, treating it as something farcical rather than tragic. Maybe the press and politicians have the point? After all, how can a possible war with a nuclear-armed rival be serious? So let's learn from our political leaders and stop worrying. We might as well die laughing:

10. In regular wars, common people die in the trenches while those who send them there spend their time giving speeches at luncheons and making TV appearances. By contrast, a nuclear war will put everyone in the same boat. We, the people, should all rejoice in the fact that we'll finally witness the examples of personal courage and leadership provided by our brave politicians. To see a politician putting his money where his mouth is, is one of the greatest joys of citizenry. For many true patriots, it is a joy worth dying for.

9. A nuclear war will provide great satisfaction for messianic nations that take offense at America's self-proclaimed status of "exceptional" and "indispensable." The US's status as the only nation that had used nuclear bombs against civilians will no longer be exceptional.

Already there is debate about who has "won" and who has "lost" in the Minsk talks.

The short answer is that as the German foreign minister Steinmeier correctly said there is no breakthrough but the Russians and the NAF have made progress.

One point needs to be explained or reiterated (since I have explained it already and many times).

The agreement does not make provision for federalisation or autonomy for the Donbass but still only refers to the grant of a law according the Donbass temporary special status within the Ukraine.

There could not be an agreement for federalisation out of the Minsk negotiations because they are primarily a summit meeting of five powers - Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, German and France. The Russians have always insisted that this is an internal conflict and civil war within the Ukraine and between Ukrainians and it is for the Ukrainians and them alone to resolve their internal differences between them through negotiations.

Yesterday's and today's reports feature events in the Ukraine in the immediate lead-up to the talks in Minsk, where the Normandy 4 hammered out details for the current ceasefire plan for 17 hours, and which concluded this morning:

• Kiev goes on offensive to Novoazovsk, "Azov" 'shot down' Russian SU-25
• Clashes in settlements Shirokino, Sahanka
• 7 dead, 16 civilians injured in rocket attack on Kramatorsk
• Minsk peace talks depend on Kiev's readiness to respond to DPR, LPR proposals

Central banks across the world have purchased a record 477.2 tons of gold in 2014 as an attempt to reduce the influence of the US dollar amid global financial instability, according to World Gold Council.

It is the biggest amount of gold purchased by the central banks in nearly 50 years, the council said in a report.

The majority of the countries bolstering their gold holdings are from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).


Russia, with gold reserves of more than 1,200 tons, added 173 tons to its already sizeable stocks. Gold accounts for 12 percent of Russian overall reserves.

The ceasefire deal brokered by the so-called Normandy Four in Minsk has offered a "glimmer of hope" that the bloodshed in Ukraine can be halted and mend strained relations between Russia and the West.

The deal was reached following marathon overnight negotiations in the Belarusian capital, Minsk, which Russian President Vladimir Putin described as being "not the best night of my life."

Reactions to the ceasefire deal in eastern Ukraine, which will come into effect at 12am local time on February 15, were measured but hopeful.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert reflected this sentiment on Twitter after the deal was struck.

"After 17 hours, negotiations in Minsk have finished: ceasefire from Feb. 15 at zero hours, then withdrawal of heavy weapons. Therein lies hope," he tweeted.

A bill submitted by an MP from President Poroshenko's party in the Ukrainian parliament seeks to criminalize public speech that reject the government's narrative on the civil war, which it describes as a Russian military invasion.

The controversial bill amends the Ukrainian criminal code to make "public denial or justification of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine in 2014-2015" a felony.

The 'crime' would carry a penalty ranging from a heavy fine and up to a five-year jail term for repeat offences or convicts who held public office.

If the bill is signed into law, it would be the latest move to attack civil freedoms by Ukraine's post-coup government defending its security policies from criticism.


Last week a Ukrainian court ordered the two-month detention of a journalist from western Ukraine who called for a boycott of the ongoing military draft. Ruslan Kotsaba stated that he would rather spend two to five years in prison for refusing to serve in the military than shoot at Ukrainians in what he described as a 'fratricidal war'. Prosecutors charged him with high treason, a crime carrying a 15-year term in Ukraine.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is considering amping up its regulation of online political speech—an idea that should be rejected from the get-go. Back in 2006, the FEC adopted a limited approach to regulating the Internet. Some FEC commissioners feel that its approach has grown outdated. But increased regulation of the Internet would threaten both free speech and privacy.

We have the opportunity to nip any new Internet regulations in the bud by convincing the FEC to maintain its commitment to protecting individuals' online speech. The FEC is accepting comments on whether or not to develop new Internet rules. EFF is submitting comments later this week urging the FEC to leave the current Internet rules in place. But the more comments from the public the better. Submit comments telling the FEC not to amp up its Internet regulations here.

The last time the FEC indicated that it was thinking about adopting regulations that would adversely impact the online community was back in 2005. But after intense criticism from First Amendment proponents—including EFF—the FEC, in 2006, adopted Internet regulations [pdf] limited to (a) paid advertisements and (b) political campaigns, political parties, and political action committees (PACs) that post communications online. The FEC left free and low-cost political commentary exempt from regulation. This was a win for bloggers and other online speakers, as we outline in our Legal Guide for Bloggers.

Now, that victory is under threat. FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel wants to re-examine [pdf] the FEC's approach to online political speech. Her statement comes after the Commission deadlocked 3-to-3 [pdf] on whether to investigate a non-profit that posted two campaign videos on YouTube without including disclaimers or disclosing production costs. Although the FEC has not yet proposed new rules, it appears that Ravel supports overhauling the regulations around online speech. This could have a huge impact on free and low-cost online political speech, especially if new regulations place complicated and burdensome record-keeping and disclosure requirements on bloggers, YouTube posters, or other online speakers, including those who post anonymously.