Historically in fact the EU’s origins lie in war preparations. The first step towards supranational economic integration in Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community of 1951, was to facilitate German rearmament at the start of the Cold War between the USA and its allies on one side and the USSR and its allies on the other, and to reconcile France to that fact.

The USA wanted a rearmed West Germany inside NATO on its foundation in 1949. This greatly alarmed France, which had been occupied by Germany just five years before. Jean Monnet was America’s man in the affair. To assuage French fears of German rearmament Monnet drafted the Schuman Declaration proposing to put the coal and steel industries of France, Germany and Benelux under a supranational High Authority as “the first step in the federation of Europe”. The EU celebrates the anniversary of this Declaration each year as “Europe Day”.

In his memoirs French President Charles de Gaulle characterised the ambitions of the first President of the European Commission, Walter Hallstein, for Germany and the then European Community as follows: “I think that if in his own way Hallstein is a sincere ‘European’, this is only because he is first of all an ambitious German. For the Europe that he would like to see would contain a framework within which his country could find once again and without cost the respectability and equality of rights that Hitler’s frenzy and defeat caused it to lose; then acquire the overwhelming weight that will follow from its economic capacity; and, finally, achieve a situation in which its quarrels concerning its boundaries and its unification will be assumed by a powerful coalition”.

Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who pushed through the euro in face of a reluctant German public opinion, was less bifocal: “The future will belong to the Germans when we have built the House of Europe. In the next two years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight”.

Other cities in Brazil's heavily populated southeast such as Rio de Janeiro face less dire shortages but could also see rationing. Uncertainty over the drought and its consequences on jobs, public health and overall quality of life have further darkened Brazilians' mood at a time when the economy is struggling and President Dilma Rousseff's popularity is at an all-time low.

After January rains disappointed, and incentives to cut consumption fell short, São Paulo officials warned their next step could be to shut off customers' water supply for as many as five days a week - a measure that would likely last until the next rainy season starts in October, if not longer.

Ronaldo Guellen, who runs a small construction store, recently ordered 70 200-liter tanks that can be used to store water. They sold out in three days, he said, and he hasn't been able to order any more because supplies are running short. "People are really getting scared," Guellen said.

The EU’s evident inability to contain the geo-political ambitions of Vladimir Putin may be the most visible of America’s latest concerns, but the more immediate danger centres on the stand-off with Greece, which grows uglier by the day. Greece’s latest overtures to the Russians make the situation seem more alarming still.

Tuesday's apparent olive branch from Greece’s celebrity finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, is in truth no compromise at all, despite the evident relief it brought to financial markets; it was merely the same demands dressed up in more acceptable language. Speculation of a six month programme extension was also fast slapped down by the German finance ministry.

To my mind, this is not a game Greece can win, if only because it is also not a confrontation which politically Berlin can afford to lose.

“We have other ways of finding money. It could be the United States at best, it could be Russia, it could be China or other countries,” he told Greek television. Mr Kammenos said Greece would prefer to leave the euro if membership means submitting to what he calls a “Europe under German domination.” The implicit threat to team up with Russia comes up at an extremely delicate moment as French and German leaders attempt to negotiate a peace deal with President Vladimir Putin, and Washington mulls military aid for Ukraine.

Nikos Chountis, Greece's deputy foreign minister, said on Tuesday that Russia and China had already offered financial support to the country. "There have been proposals, offers I would say, from Russia, recently after the election, for economic support as well as from China, regarding help, investment possibilities," he said. "We have not asked for it. It's on the table. We're discussing it," he added, stressing that the first priority was to "exhaust all options" in reaching a deal with the eurozone.

Cyprus has already caused a political storm by offering to expand Russian access to its ports and airfields – including “military facilities” - though it has stopped short of offering full military bases.

A proposal sent by the White House to Capitol Hill on Wednesday would formally give the president the power to continue the airstrikes he has been conducting since last fall against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, as well as “associated persons or forces.” The measure would set limits that were never imposed during the wars of the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq by expiring in three years and withholding permission for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”

But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal, Mr Obama, who has said there would be no boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, envisioned limited ground combat operations “such as rescue operations” or the use of “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” He also said the legislation would allow the use of ground forces for intelligence gathering, target spotting and planning assistance to ground troops of allies like Iraq’s military.

“If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” Mr Obama wrote. While he repeated his contention that “existing statutes provide me with the authority I need,” he said he wanted to work with Congress to obtain bipartisan support. “I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.”

The BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) is taking over college campuses in Europe and America. Ronnie Fraser, a college lecturer and founding director of the Academic Friends of Israel, warns that the next generation of leaders is being brainwashed that Israel is the worst nation on earth. "Britain's students are being fed a diet of 'Israel is a racist state. Israel is a Zionist state. Israel equals the Nazis," he said. Fraser sued his own union, the University and College Union, for institutional anti-Semitism, saying it attempted an academic boycott of Israel that crossed the line into anti-Semitism.

In Germany, Nazi persecution of the Jews began with a boycott in April 1933. While some who are boycotting Israel may truly believe they’re only trying to help Palestinians, but to Jews, the goal of the Israel boycott is a destination similar to Nazi Germany’s. "People want to see the total destruction of Israel. When people say, from the river to the sea, that's what it means," Mandy Blumenthal with the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism explained.

There are undoubtedly those in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement who believe they are only trying to help Palestinians. But Jews see that the movement has a destination very similar to that of Nazi Germany. The boycott movement wants the full right return of the Palestinians; "from the river to the sea," which means Israel would be erased. The Nazis would call it "Judenfrei" or "free of the Jews."

The report in question - actually two reports issued together - is from the hefty US National Academy of Sciences.

According to the NAS:

Present-day global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 90 percent ... Although emissions reductions are technologically feasible, they have been difficult to implement for political, economic, and social reasons that may persist well into the future ... It is thus prudent to also examine other options for countering the impacts of climate change.

But one of the authors of the report, Professor Raymond T Pierrehumbert, begs to differ. In a post on the popular blogging service Slate.com, he lays out his personal views. He feels that some of the other options - in particular those covered in the second report, dealing with the reflection of more sunlight back into space - are just too dangerous even to do research into.

He writes:

The idea of “fixing” the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad. Professor Pierrehumbert feels that a future world in which the atmosphere is full of carbon but disastrous heating is only averted by a continually maintained effort to reflect sunlight away is not only dangerous but "an evil choice". He also seems to have very little faith in the United States in particular in such a scenario.

Lauding the rule-based system to emerge in the post-World War II era, Obama admitted it wasn’t perfect, but argued “the UN, the IMF, and a whole host of treaties and rules and norms that were established really helped to stabilize the world in ways that it wouldn't otherwise be.” He argued, however, that the efficacy of this idealistic, Wilsonian, rule-based system was severely tested by the fact that “there are bad people out there who are trying to do us harm.”

In the president’s view, the reality of those threats has compelled the US to have “the strongest military in the world.” Obama further says that “we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn't do what we need them to do if it weren't for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we had — if we didn't have that dose of realism, we wouldn't get anything done, either.”

Jean-Claude Juncker deliberately chose to deliver his warning in German. "Commissioners are proposed by the member states, but they do not represent the interests of their member state," the newly appointed president of the European Commission said as he introduced his team last September. In the event a commissioner confused "national and European policies," he threatened, he would move that appointee to another portfolio.

Germany's Commissioner Günther Oettinger paid little heed to the warning. On January 8, he met in Hamburg with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to warn them that Juncker was planning to loosen the rules of the Stability Pact for the common currency zone. The three quickly agreed at the meeting that the development would not be in Germany's interest, and they agreed to thwart Juncker's plans.

It had been clear for some time that Europe's most powerful leader would eventually clash with the head of the European Commission, the EU's executive, but it happened earlier than some might have expected. Juncker's commission hasn't even been in office for 100 days yet and conflicts between Berlin and Brussels are already surfacing. Policy differences are at the forefront, with Juncker feeling that Merkel has bound Europe to austerity policies for too long. But the conflict also touches on a more fundamental question: Who holds the power in Europe?

CNN’s blunder was immediately noticed by viewers – many of whom began sharing the screenshot on Twitter, calling it a “Freudian slip” and commenting that “the mask slips.” One person said it was “the stupidest thing I’ve seen today.”

The definition of Kiev forces as “pro-US troops” looks to be a perfect contrast to the term “pro-Russian rebels,” which is used by Western media to refer to the militias in Ukraine’s southeastern Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. Western media outlets claim the regions are receiving direct support from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is not part of the Ukraine conflict. Meanwhile, the US and EU have been unable to back their accusations that Russia is supporting and arming the rebels.

Last week, Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, called the Ukraine conflict a proxy war between Russia and the US-led NATO bloc. “A political dispute in Ukraine became a Ukrainian civil war. Russia backed one side; the United States and NATO, the other. So it’s not only a new Cold War, it’s a proxy war,” Cohen told Russia Insider.

The Ukraine conflict began last April, when Kiev sent regular forces and volunteer battalions to the southeastern Donetsk and Lugansk regions, after rebels there refused to recognize the country’s new, coup-imposed authorities. The civil war has so far claimed the lives of 5,300 people, according to the UN.

There were three main forces behind the drive towards integration.

Firstly, the reality of the Cold War and the growing dominance of the international stage by the USSR and USA brought home to Europeans the need to collaborate to match the political, military and economic strength of the superpowers.

Secondly, both of the World Wars had started on European soil, devastating vast swathes of the continent. Integration seemed the safest way to prevent future continental conflicts.

Finally, there seemed to be a desire among Europeans to create a more open and free continent, one which worked together for prosperity with fewer barriers to trade and travel.

In recent years, the validity of the European Union has been brought under heavy scrutiny, many European citizens campaign for their governments to secede from the Union. In such a situation, it is useful to look back on the treaty that started the transition of the Union from a purely economic one into one with significant political and social influence. Although the EU’s origins can be traced back to the formation of the ECSC in 1951, the institution as it exists today only truly came into being in 1992.

The Greek elections, in which the radical left-wing Syriza won a near majority, shattered the Brussels consensus. The new coalition government insists that austerity must end and foreign debts must be renegotiated. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said that he wants Greece to stay in the euro zone as well as the EU. But a breakdown of the European bailout program might make a Greek exit from the euro ("Grexit") the only feasible option. And the popular revolt against outsiders dictating economic policy creates a huge new roadblock to attempts to expand Brussels' power over EU members.

Europe remains the world's most important economic unit. Home to most of the significant colonial powers, the continent enjoys globe-spanning historical and cultural ties. Only after the mid-20th century was Europe displaced from military pre-eminence. In 1992 German Chancellor Helmut Kohl predicted "the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of after the war, the United States of Europe."

However, the EU failed to live up to the grand hopes of the Eurocrats, the academic, bureaucratic, business, media, and political elites who dominate continental politics and policy. Europe remains a geographic conglomeration, not a political unit.

Greece lied about meeting the euro's standards, but the euro zone's other members didn't care. Once in, Athens borrowed at essentially German interest rates and spent wildly - but not on anything that could credibly be called an "investment." Instead, the Greeks preferred to keep their system of relaxed but corrupt inefficiency. Debilitating work rules, privileged economic cartels, bloated public payrolls, profiteering political influences, and enervating cultural practices ensured that the country would never grow like its northern neighbors. Soon the loan bills came due, and Athens couldn't pay…

"Look, the state of their economy is really on the verge of disaster," Adomanis told host Alyona Minkovski, later adding, "If you look at the amount of assistance that Ukraine has actually received from both the United States and the Europeans, it’s been pretty paltry amounts. It's a few billion here and there, and [Ukraine's] funding needs are, at a minimum, somewhere between $15 and $20 billion and likely quoted a bit more."

Ukraine's Hryvnia currency plunged about 30 percent against the dollar on Thursday, Reuters reported. The news service explained that the country's currency has been sliding since the start of the protests in the winter of 2013. Decades of corruption have taken a heavy toll on the country's economy and the crisis has been made worse by the current fighting.

Mark Adomanis said the fighting has shut down areas that were once counted as some of the Ukrainian economy's most productive, like the Donets Basin. "This is a real catastrophe from an economic standpoint, and, again, unless there is very rapid and very substantial assistance that's provided to Kiev, I’m not sure how much longer they can keep things going on," Adomanis said.

Merkel staunchly opposes arming Ukraine's beleaguered military. “I hope that we shall be able to solve this conflict by diplomatic means because I think by military means it cannot be solved," Merkel said through a translator.

Her meetings in Washington and Ottawa followed German and French-led talks last week with Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The parties will meet again Wednesday in the Belarusian capital of Minsk. "We will see over the next few days whether there will be progress. That is anything but certain," Merkel said.

The Chancellor said if there is no progress Western allies will coordinate future steps, but reiterated she is not in favor of lethal aid. "Now we should put all of our efforts into the question ‘can we find a diplomatic solution?’", she said. "I'm very grateful that both the American president and the Canadian prime minister support us in this endeavor."