US accuses Russia of missile violations to cover Europe deployment plans – Moscow

Published time: June 09, 2015 11:31

Iskander high-precision missile system (RIA Novosti/Alexei Danichev)

Iskander high-precision missile system (RIA Novosti/Alexei Danichev)

The US is ramping up the controversy over alleged violations of a key missile ban treaty to cover up its own plans to deploy missiles in Europe, a top Russian military official said.

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov was commenting on a reported plan by the US to deploy nuclear-capable intermediate-range cruise missiles in Europe and Asia targeting Russian territory. The plan was cited by AP, which said it was penned by the office of US General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and contained several contingencies for a scenario in which a key missile treaty between US and Russia fails.

The deployment may be possible after scrapping the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The Cold War agreement banned ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 km and 5,500 km.

“Apparently, the US is ramping up the issue of ‘Russian violations’ to justify their own ostensibly responsive military action that would be aimed at ensuring American ‘leadership’ in confrontation with the mythical ‘Russian military threat’ that Washington drums up regardless of all facts to the contrary,” Antonov said.

He added that the ministry requested formal comments from the US on the AP report and that if it were true, it would lead to dangerous consequences.

“We stated our commitment to the INF treaty on many occasions. We believe that the return to Europe of American short and intermediate range missiles and their deployment in other regions, from which they would threaten Russia and other nations not following Washington directions would have a negative impact on global security and stability,” Antonov said.

He added that the two parties should hold expert discussions of any differences they have, including Russia’s complaints over the US part of the bargain.

The INF treaty was signed to get rid of massive arsenals of nuclear missiles that were deployed in Europe and were considered too risky to keep, because their short travel times left little margin for error. Under it almost 2,700 intermediate-range missiles were scrapped by the two sides.

However Washington and Moscow have been trading accusations of violations from the INF treaty for years. The US claims that Russia has a cruise missile launched by Iskander launcher that has a range over 500 km. Another one, called Rubezh, which is currently in development, is classified as intercontinental with a range of 6,000 km, but Washington alleges it can hit targets closer than 5,500 km.

Moscow, for its part, accuses the US of deploying intermediate-range missiles in the form of target missiles for testing of its anti-ballistic missile systems.

More recently Russia complained that the US is deploying missile launchers in Romania as part of its controversial ABM shield in Europe. The launchers are meant for SM-3 interceptors, but are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. Normally Tomahawks are launched from warships, but the launchers in Romania effectively make them ground-launched and thus violating the treaty, Moscow argues.

Some strategists in Russia are also concerned about the US drone fleet, saying that the operational ranges and pilotless nature of strike UAVs like the MQ-1 Predator essentially make them indistinguishable from short-range cruise missiles.

The latest round of the blame game between Russia and the US over the INF treaty came in April, when the US Secretary of State and Russia’s top nonproliferation diplomat voiced their complaints at the UN General Assembly.



Wikileaks releases ‘largest’ trove of docs exposing secret TiSA trade deal

Published time: June 03, 2015 22:30

A screenshot from

A screenshot from

WikiLeaks has published 17 secret documents related to a controversial trade agreement currently being negotiated behind closed doors between the US, EU and 23 WTO members. NGO Global Justice Now called the leak “a dark day for democracy.”

The documents released by the transparency group are allegedly associated with TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement) negotiations, which have been taking place in secret since early 2013. The participants of the talks include 24 WTO members, such as the US, EU and other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Australia, Pakistan and Israel.

According to WikiLeaks, the economies of the member countries now comprise two-thirds of global GDP. Their services “now account for nearly 80 percent of the US and EU economies,” the group says, adding that “even in developing countries like Pakistan [they] account for 53 percent of the economy.”

The European Commission web source says the participants in the agreement, which is set “to liberalize trade in services,” “account for 70 percent of world trade in services.” The “talks are based on proposals made by the participants,” the EU source adds, saying that “TiSA aims at opening up markets and improving rules” in a number of areas, including financial services, transport and e-commerce.

A number of the world's economies, including all the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – are excluded from the TiSA negotiations, which purport to benefit the global economy.

The release of the 17 leaked documents on Wednesday is “the largest on secret TISA documents” and sheds light on “numerous previously undisclosed areas.” It includes drafts and annexes on such issues as air traffic services, domestic regulation, telecommunications services and transparency, with documents dating from February 2013 to February 2015. The papers were to be kept secret until at least five years after the completion of the TiSA negotiations and the trade agreement's entry into force.

Saying that the leaks “reinforce the concerns of campaigners about the threat that TiSA poses to vital public services,” Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said “there is no mandate for such a far-reaching program.”

“It's a dark day for democracy when we are dependent on leaks like this for the general public to be informed of the radical restructuring of regulatory frameworks that our governments are proposing,” Dearden said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Wednesday leak follows the publication of similar documents relating to TiSA negotiations in 2014. In a statement then published by WikiLeaks alongside the draft of a 19-page document, the group said that “proponents of TiSA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets.”

The agreement is part of the strategic “T-treaty trinity”: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), TiSA, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It complements the other two global trade agreements dealing with goods and investments, which are all currently being negotiated in secret. TiSA is believed to be the largest component of the three.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks announced its intent to raise $100,000 to be used as a reward for the remaining chapters of the TPP trade deal. The whistleblowing platform has previously leaked TPP chapters, including sections on intellectual property rights, the environment, and investment. In appealing for funding, the group said access to the lacking chapters is “America's most-wanted secret.” ___________________________________________________________________         Fear and loathing of the USA PATRIOT Act

Published time: May 30, 2015 13:27
Edited time: May 30, 2015 14:04

Reuters/Jason Reed

Reuters/Jason Reed

Several controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire Sunday: The Obama administration insists that letting the law lapse would harm US security, while critics counter that it would be a big step in ending NSA abuses as exposed by Snowden.

Should it stay, or should it go?

The “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (USA PATRIOT) Act was adopted in October 2001, six weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks. Its most recent extension was in 2011.

Several provisions of the Patriot Act are expiring – “sunsetting,” in government parlance – on May 31. Among them is the notorious Section 215, authorizing bulk collection of Americans’ data, which a federal court ruled illegal earlier this month. According to government officials, it has been used almost 200 times per year.

Other provisions set to expire June 1 enable the government to conduct “roving wiretaps” of suspects who switch phones, or spy on “lone wolf” individuals who are not affiliated with an international terrorism organization. FBI director James Comey has called those tools “essential,” while Attorney General Loretta Lynch argued they were “vital and uncontroversial” tools used to “combat terrorism and crime.”

Compromise Possible?

On Friday, President Obama demanded that the Senate to approve a House-backed law that would extend the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and redefine the bulk collection of data.

The only thing that is standing in the way is a handful of senators who are resisting these reforms,” he told reporters in the Oval Office, after a meeting with Attorney General Lynch.

I don't want us to be in a situation in which for a certain period of time those authorities go away and suddenly we are dark,” Obama said. “And heaven forbid we've got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity but we didn't do so simply because of inaction in the Senate.”

He was referring to HR 2048, also known as the USA Freedom Act, passed by the House in a 338-88 vote on May 13. It would do away with Section 215 programs over six months, but give phone companies the responsibility of maintaining phone records that the government could search. The legislation also includes provisions for “roving wiretaps” and “lone wolf” surveillance demanded by the FBI and the DOJ.

Critics blasted the Freedom Act as an inadequate check on government’s mass collection of Americans’ data. Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) described it as a “step in the wrong direction by specifically authorizing such collection in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Brave New World without Section 215

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), an outspoken opponent of NSA’s bulk spying programs, said that President Obama could end the illegal surveillance with an executive order, if he wanted.

Why doesn’t he stop it? What’s he waiting for? He started it on his own, he should stop it…I’ve asked the president repeatedly to stop the program,” Paul told CBS’ This Morning. As for the data collected by the NSA under Section 215, “I think the information was collected illegally and should be purged,” Paul told Fox & Friends.

In a 10-hour filibuster on May 20, Paul effectively ensured the House would go into recess before the Senate could debate USA Freedom Act. The Senate subsequently rejected both the Freedom Act and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s attempt to pass a two-month extension of the Patriot Act.

The sunset of Section 215 would undoubtedly be a significant political loss for the intelligence community, and it would be a sensible first step towards broader reform of the surveillance laws,” wrote Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director at the American Civil Liberties Union, “but there’s no support for the argument that the sunset of Section 215 would compromise national security.”

Scary New World without Section 215

That has not stopped government officials from painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if a few Patriot Act provisions were allowed to “sunset” this weekend. Reporters summoned to the White House were told by three senior Obama Administration officials – on condition of anonymity – that doing nothing amounted to “playing national security Russian roulette,” reported The Hill.

Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who has helped publish Snowden’s revelations since 2013, blasted the press for being mere stenographers to anonymous White House officials.

It’s just government propaganda masquerading as a news article, where anonymous officials warn the country that they will die if the Patriot Act isn’t renewed immediately, while decreeing that Congressional critics of the law will have blood on their hands due to their refusal to obey,” Greenwald wrote in The Intercept. “In other words, it’s a perfect museum exhibit for how government officials in both parties and American media outlets have collaborated for 15 years to enact one radical measure after the next and destroy any chance for rational discourse about it.”

By Friday, however, the New York Times was backing the expiration of Section 215 and other Patriot Act provisions. The editorial board even praised – after a fashion – Edward Snowden, calling him a “whistleblower” and saying his revelations “prompted the Obama administration to start a review of intelligence gathering techniques and vow to reform the program. They also led lawmakers, for the first time, to have a meaningful exchange of views about domestic surveillance.”

There is no question that the federal government should have broad authority to investigate terrorism threats and suspected spies operating in the United States,” the NY Times editors wrote, “but not at the expense of meaningful judicial review.”

How to shut down massive surveillance

According to a senior official who spoke with reporters at the White House, the NSA has a team on “hot standby”, preparing to begin shutting down its spy servers at 4 PM on Sunday. “Rebooting would take about a day, the official said, and would entail going back to the telecommunications providers and obtaining a court order,” reported the New York Times.

About that time, the Senate will be holding an extraordinary session called by Majority Leader McConnell. Roll call votes may start by 6 PM. In case the Senate passes the USA Freedom Act, or even McConnell’s proposed outright extension of the existing Patriot Act, the NSA could “resume operations without disruption,” according to The Hill.

We’re in uncharted waters,” said one senior official. “We have not had to confront addressing the terrorist threat without these authorities, and it’s going to be fraught with unnecessary risk.”

It’s about more than just the PATRIOT Act

Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, argued not just for letting Section 215 expire, but for abandoning attempts to pass the USA Freedom Act.

If the House reform passes, Granick wrote in Forbes, “it’ll be suspicionless spying as usual until the next big surveillance provision, section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act sunsets at the end of 2017.”

The bill was put together before a federal court ruled Section 215 unconstitutional, she said, and before a report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General said the FBI was “unable to identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained through use of Section 215 orders.”

Julian Sanchez, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, said that letting Section 215 expire would “provide the illusion of triumph even while leaving much of the machinery of surveillance intact.”

Writing with Vice’s Motherboard blog, Sanchez argued for passing the USA Freedom Act as a step towards reforming the spying programs, noting that the vast majority of the Patriot Act was permanent, with vague and overlapping authorities that could let the government continue to spy pretty much at will.

For instance, if the FBI wanted to obtain phone, email, internet and financial records, it could just issue itself National Security Letters again, without seeking judicial approval. Massive surveillance inside the US under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, or the foreign surveillance under Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, would remain untouched as well, Sanchez noted.



New documents: the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 attacks

May 29, 2015 


We all know the fact that the invasion of Iraq, and we can not prove it. But, now we can prove it . Some of the documents recently published by the National Security Archive prove without any doubt that the Bush administration had planned to topple Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq at the beginning of January 2001, was developed strategic plans and resource allocation at the beginning of November of the same year.

On January 30, 2001, Bush administration officials met for the first time to discuss the situation in the Middle East, including Bush's intention to withdraw from the peace process between Israel and Palestine, and "How to Iraq working to destabilize the region." Bush ordered both Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton, a review of military options in Iraq, and ordered the Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet to improve intelligence there. The Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, and coordinator of the fight against terrorism Richard Clarke, in a daze of insisting on the face of Iraq, a goal consistent with the appointment of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Feith later, two of the opponents of this issue, to fill senior positions within the US Department of Defense.

These documents are clear evidence that the Bush administration tracked from the first day-designed to the invasion of Iraq at some point during the terrorist rule. A memorandum dated January 23, 2001, defines "assets of the Iraqi regime change policy". This was a request from the Vice President-elect Dick Cheney before he took office, as a means to justify policies on aggressive US efforts in order to put "regime change" in Iraq.

I wrote this note on November 27, 2001, when read will feel a chill in your spine. It's a list of points of dialogue that took place between Rumsfeld and Franks on how to deal with the willingness to scale invasion in Iraq. On November 27, 51 days after the invasion of Afghanistan. Check the following point: "Contrary to what happened in Afghanistan, it is important to have preconceived ideas about the identity of who will rule after that."

Afghanistan were not among the priorities of the Bush administration. The only goal of management centered on Iraq. And to mobilize support for a comprehensive plan, they were mobilizing Catholics and anyone else to start the formation of the slogans of "just wars". There is an internal memo from Robert Andrews, assistant secretary of defense, in the December 17, 2001, describe it.

It shows a prominent Catholic theologian moral justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq:

  • It introduces the concept of "system operator".
  • It describes the concept of exploiting the situation in Iraq.
  • Shows how preventive action against Iraq commensurate with the just war theory.

It reached that note to Douglas Feith, one of the extraordinary neo-conservatives, who have given up their positions: "George wonderful man and a gentleman. Thank you for sending this note. "

Rather; the idea that Catholics assistants to Pope describe wars as "fair" as well as the intervention of our government, not of the divine nature. The article itself promotes the lie of weapons of mass destruction, and enhances what we know now that he was not more than just a fantasy in black hearts for Dick Cheney and his generals of the neo-conservatives. But he said the political cover necessary for the Bush administration to push forward the invasion of Iraq efforts.

Iraq was, for Cheney and Bush and members of this team, just a way to increase the prestige and power. No voice louder than the voice repeated words in this note from Donald Rumsfeld on July 27, 2001, while repeating: "If Saddam's regime was toppled, it will be our best in the region and beyond."

The first time that this sentence was little with his sense of regret that we are not friends of favorite Iran. It was the second time during his closing remarks about why the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would strengthen the United States' policy between the Arabs and Israel. It's like a mantra to Rumsfeld, to say that this idea that "the credibility of the United States and improve its influence throughout the region."

Here are the final blow of the National Security Archive: "At this stage, strong note contained evidence in April, supported in 2002 by members of the Group of covert operations in Iraq, was" regime change "in Iraq as part of Bush's agenda when he took office in January 2001. (Note No. 33) the events of September 11 were not the motive behind the US invasion of Iraq; it was a source of distraction for him. "


West pulled out $3.5trn from BRICS to thwart group – Russian Security Council

Published time: May 26, 2015 10:55

Nikolay Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

Nikolay Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

Western countries have withdrawn from BRICS countries more than $3.5 trillion over the last 10 years to suppress the group, said Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev, adding that nearly half of the sum quit in the last three years.

“West is using International financial institutions as leverage more and more often. Our countries will be primarily deterred by informational impact, not military, by artificial exacerbation of national, religious and cultural conflicts," Patrushev said on Tuesday at the fifth meeting of BRICS high representatives for security issues.

BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) expected to be launched in 2015-2016 is a countermeasure to the Western financial pressure as the bank will provide economic resilience, he said.

Secretary of the Russian Security Council said it was necessary for BRICS nations to increase cooperation in areas such as joint struggle against terrorism, extremism, separatism and cross-border crime.

Among other topics, Patrushev said BRICS was becoming more influential at world’s political stage.

Russia’s and China’s firm stance, supported by other BRICS nations, prevented foreign military intervention in Syria, encouraged the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, preventing them from falling into terrorists hands, he said.

The NDB was established at most recent 6th BRICS summit in July 2014 by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. A $100 billion worth bank is expected to become a key lending institution, rivaling Western dominance in the financial sector.

The seventh BRICS summit is scheduled for early July and will be held in the Russian city of Ufa, Bashkortostan, this year. Russia was chosen to assume the BRICS rotating leadership in April 2015.


West turning Mediterranean into mass grave

John Wight is a writer and commentator specializing in geopolitics, UK domestic politics, culture and sport.

Published time: April 21, 2015 15:35
The Italian coastguard ship 'Bruno Gregoretti', carrying dead immigrants on board, arrives in Senglea, in Valletta's Grand, Harbour, April 20, 2015. (Reuters / Darrin Zammit Lupi)

The Italian coastguard ship 'Bruno Gregoretti', carrying dead immigrants on board, arrives in Senglea, in Valletta's Grand, Harbour, April 20, 2015. (Reuters / Darrin Zammit Lupi)

The drowning of hundreds of refugees in the Mediterranean is a crime against humanity, the ultimate responsibility lies with Western governments that have proved themselves the enemy of everything good in the world and a friend to everything bad.

Not only does the West destroy countries, such as Libya, it allows those trying to flee the destruction it has wrought to perish in the most cruel and unforgivable manner, turning the Med into a mass grave to rank with those that have stained human history throughout the 20th century.

This tragedy comes as the culmination of the campaign of demonization that has been conducted against migrants across Western Europe over the past few years. It is a campaign driven by a resurgent right and ultra nationalist political parties and forces, and has achieved mainstream acceptance, serving to dehumanize the victims of the West’s foreign policy.

Migrants are human beings. They are not the ‘untermenschen’ commonly depicted, and their plight shames every citizen ruled by governments who speak of democracy while practicing ‘democratization’, the new imperialism that differs from the old only in the way it is sold and packaged.

Consider Libya. NATO’s air war against the country in 2011 was unleashed on the back of a UN Security Council Resolution pledging to ‘protect civilians’ with a no-fly zone. It was then used to effect regime change with the consequence, four years on, that Libya has descended into an abyss of extremism, chaos, and terrorism. It has become, in effect, the shop window of Western foreign policy, sitting alongside Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria in this regard.

Italian coastguard personnel in protective clothing carry the body of a dead immigrant on their ship Bruno Gregoretti in Senglea, in Valletta's Grand Harbour, April 20, 2015. (Reuters / Darrin Zammit Lupi)

Italian coastguard personnel in protective clothing carry the body of a dead immigrant on their ship Bruno Gregoretti in Senglea, in Valletta's Grand Harbour, April 20, 2015. (Reuters / Darrin Zammit Lupi)

Last year's scaling down of the number of rescue ship operating in the Med, voted on by countries across the EU, was based on the ludicrous assertion that rescuing migrants when they ended up in the water was a ‘pull’ factor responsible for encouraging them to make the attempt to reach European soil.

It was a decision tantamount to murder, and those responsible should be held to account.

In 2014 the total number of deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean was 3,600. So far, this year, the death toll is 1,600, with the near certainty that it will climb exponentially in the coming months unless a drastic and comprehensive humanitarian response is put in place to prevent it.

Based on the European Commission’s ten-point action plan on migrants, announced after a hastily organized joint meeting of foreign and interior EU ministers in Luxembourg to discuss the crisis, such a humanitarian response will not be forthcoming anytime soon. What is being proposed instead is a military and police response – in other words the criminalization of migrants whose only crime is attempting to flee the catastrophic consequences of Western military and political intervention in their countries.

On one level it is so utterly absurd it is Kafkaesque. On another it reeks of barbarism.

The West has perfected the art of presenting itself as the champion of human rights around the world, while in truth working to subvert them. The fact it can and continues to do so without betraying even the slightest evidence of embarrassment is a phenomenon to behold. When Orwell wrote, “War is peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength,” in his iconic novel 1984, he could have been describing the mantra of the EU and NATO.

Those drowning migrants reflect the drowning moral authority of those who claim the mantle of progress while standing on the bones of the countless millions who’ve perished and/or seen their lives reduced to unremitting despair over the past decade, victims of those in the West who regard the world as a chessboard in which entire peoples and societies are pushed around and destroyed as they see fit.

Compounding the horror of this mass tragedy in the Med has been the public description in the UK of fleeing refugees and migrants as “cockroaches” by a woman – Katie Hopkins - whose celebrity over the past few years has been based on nothing more than the airing of views and opinions that have no place in a civilized society.

The word “cockroaches” employed to describe human beings calls to mind Hitler’s dehumanization of Jews and Slavs prior to their mass extermination in the Holocaust. It also calls to mind the dehumanization of the Tutsis by their Hutu murderers during the Rwandan genocide. It is not free speech, it is hate speech, and the fact that this woman is able to enjoy a mainstream platform as a newspaper columnist and radio presenter is an indictment of British society and immorality of a reactionary media that is swimming in sewage.

But before lapsing into the mistake of treating Katie Hopkins as a lone voice, she is a product of a worldview that is more common than many would like to think among opinion formers in the UK. Consider the emergence of Nigel Farage and his anti-immigration party UKIP. The influence which he and his party has had in shaping the political discourse when it comes to immigration has combined with the British Tory government’s policy of austerity to create ideal conditions for the politics of fear, division, and xenophobia to gain traction.

The whipping up of a moral panic over immigration – not only in the UK but also throughout Europe – has resulted in the most reactionary and regressive period the continent has experienced since the 1930s, with the emergence of fascism.

Here the words of the German playwright Bertolt Brecht, writing at the end of the Second World War, spring to mind: “The womb from which this monster emerged remains fertile.”


Former GDR top brass slam US-NATO policy, anti-Russian rhetoric in open letter

Published time: May 07, 2015 05:52

Participants of a rally against NATO's policy by Munich's Rathaus (Town Hall). Several hundred people gathered in the center of the city requiring to put an end to NATO's aggressive police and stop a confrontation with Russia.(RIA Novosti / Vladimir Pesnya)

Participants of a rally against NATO's policy by Munich's Rathaus (Town Hall). Several hundred people gathered in the center of the city requiring to put an end to NATO's aggressive police and stop a confrontation with Russia.(RIA Novosti / Vladimir Pesnya)

Former top military commanders of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) penned an open letter on the eve of WWII Victory Day celebrations calling for the US and NATO to refrain from Cold War policies and cooperate with Russia to solve the Ukrainian crisis.

More than 100 top brass of the ex-GDR, the majority of whom fought on the fronts of WWII, slammed American and North Atlantic alliance leaders for using military power in the resolution of conflicts. Titled “Soldiers for Peace,” the open letter was presented in Berlin on Tuesday.

“We witness War becoming a permanent companion of humanity once again. The new world order that the USA and their allies have been trying to establish has recently led to nothing but new wars – in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, in Iraq, Yemen and Sudan, in Libya and Somalia. These wars claimed the lives of more than two million people and forced even more out of their homes,” the letter said.

‘Very important to remember it was shared victory’ – top Russian diplomat ahead of WW2 anniversary

Former German generals pointed to NATO’s “intensive militarization of Europe” saying that war “has returned” to the continent.

“The United States as well as the other NATO members have recently returned to the policy of the Cold War and they justify it by imaginary Russian aggression,” said former GDR defense minister Theodor Hoffmann during the presentation of the open letter on Tuesday.

“The aim of the American strategy consists in defeating Russia as a competitor to the US as well as in weakening the EU. The US hopes to isolate Russia and to corrode its ties to Europe and particularly to Germany by admitting Ukraine to NATO,” the letter reads.

The East German commanders also blamed the US and their allies for launching an “unprecedented media campaign,” which aims to “to win the trust of people in western countries over to their cause.”

“And those taking part in this campaign are just irredeemable politicians and corrupt journalists that stir up hostility, hatred and war hysteria,” the letter states.

Obama's outrageous snub to the Russian people

“We are set against military power becoming a key instrument in modern international politics. We are absolutely sure that urgent political problems cannot be resolved by military means.”

Among the signatories are two former GDR defense ministers, three former Chiefs of Staff of the National People’s Army (NPA), 19 lieutenant generals, 61 major generals and several admirals.

“Most signatories of our plea fought at the fronts of WWII and know exactly that war can by no means be a political instrument,” Hoffmann said.

Unique historic color video shows Berlin in July 1945

He pointed out that any “participation of the modern German army in conflicts and wars waged by the West, even if it is just a sort of logistical support, runs counter to an agreement between the former Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl and the then East Germany leader Erich Honecker [signed on September 8, 1987], which provided that no war would be ever launched by Germany.”

The letter also stated that a new war in Europe will inevitably lead to unprecedented damage due to the destructive power of the modern arms, even turning the continent into a “lifeless wasteland.”

“Have the numerous victims of the Second World War already been forgotten? Do modern Europeans no longer remember the devastation, the many refugees and unending suffering of the people engendered by WWII? Have the latest US and NATO wars not claimed enough people’s lives?” the letter says.

872 days of cold, hunger & death: Leningrad siege survivors share memories with RT

The former top brass emphasize in their statement that it was the Soviet army and the Soviet people that “carried the heaviest burden in defeating fascism” and “now, on the 70th anniversary of the Victory in Europe day, we should express our gratitude to them.”

The West needs to cooperate with Moscow to solve international issues, the letter stressed, urging for a “peaceful dialogue and not combative rhetoric.” It also points out that the EU shouldn’t depend on the US in issues of military security.

“Instead of the NATO ‘Rapid Deployment force’ near the Russian border we need more tourist and youth exchanges as well as peace conferences between us and our eastern neighbor,” it adds.

There are plans to distribute the letter among members of the German parliament as well send it to the embassies of NATO countries in Germany. The organizers of the campaign also plan to send the text to Russia, so leaflets can be handled out at the Red Square parade marking the 70th V-Day anniversary on May 9 in Moscow.

International News

الأربعاء 22 أبريل 2015 | 11:43 صباحا
| Number of Views: 35
Tension between the West and Russia takes the upward trend in the new Cold War

Follow-up / ... the world stands on the brink of conflict and cool paramilitary draw ambitions of international disputes and expansionist policies and concerns of control, where there are exercises in the geo-strategic sites related to the security situation and the threat of sources in addition to the expansion of geopolitical conflicts.

Launched aerial maneuvers and exercises a wide range of NATO, "NATO" on Tuesday in Latvia one of the three Baltic states along with Estonia and Lithuania.

The news agency Tass reported that the leadership of the Unified Air Force for NATO cooperation with the Latvian armed forces oversees these intense workouts, note that the overflights circle in the framework of the exercises will include airspace to all the countries of the Baltic.

These exercises came at a time fears the Baltic states are members of the alliance that Russian President Vladimir Putin used the logic he used to justify intervention in the Crimea last year. Russia has not shown any reaction about these periodic exercises for NATO, but it renewed accusing him following serious Militarism "" In terms of global security.

Considers Russia, according to military analysts, that NATO intensifies maneuvers sharply on the Russian border from the Baltic to the Eastern Europe and this situation makes the Kremlin feels boxed and threatened, especially in light of the United States and Western Europe Activity in Ukraine so the earlier conduct maneuvers own as a counterweight to aggression NATO.

10 countries participating in the NATO maneuvers described Balousa range since the start of tensions with Russia

These exercises are broader NATO in the airspace of the Baltic states, as will participate warplanes to ten countries are Belgium, Germany, Spain, Estonia, Italy and Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and the United States, in addition to Finland and Sweden.

And air maneuvers designed to train crews fighters to coordinate their operations with air support crews and units of ground forces aircraft, as well as on the job training in emergency situations.

In this new crisis intervention maneuvers Ukraine in a new phase is open not only to tear this country, but also the probability exceeded the limits, and extensibility to soft sites, especially in the small Baltic adjacent to Russia and neighboring countries, especially with the continued harassment of the NATO alliance in Moscow.

Some Western parties and considers that Russia's ambitions to control more areas of influence may increase in light of the continued display of power between Russia and the United States on the one hand, and between Russia and the European Union on the other hand policy.

Maneuvers came as the Baltic states fear that Putin used the logic that justified its annexation of Crimea

In Latvia, a large proportion of the population speaks Russian as residents Dugavils but they prefer to maintain their independence and do not want help from Buyten.

It is clear that Russia was upset by US intervention in the region containing the Baltic states in general and especially Ukraine, which has its support by sending three hundred soldiers from the Special Forces to train Ukrainian guard forces of the Interior Ministry.

In September, US President Barack Obama unveiled an initiative to strengthen the US presence in Europe, especially in the Baltic to allocate additional soldiers, and then stressed his commitment to the security of the Baltic states.

The spread of American troops within Washington's efforts to pacify its allies in Eastern Europe fears, and give them a signal that NATO NATO is ready to provide them with protection against any Russian threat.

US forces and to extend the period of their stay in the Baltic countries because of tension with Russia, said the commander of ground forces in the region that the United States has deployed hundreds of troops in the three countries to reassure allies and deter "Russian aggression."

It seems that the political landscape of Russian relations with the West, streaked aversion and more specifically with NATO that hard looking for a foothold in the new Cold War military exercises on the edge of the border gate Alrosah.anthy 1

‘Ignorance and arrogance’ – Duma speaker blames US for international crises

Published time: April 13, 2015 13:46

Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin. (Reuters/Sergey Guneev)

Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin. (Reuters/Sergey Guneev)

The United States’ arrogance and lack of awareness of international problems that it tries to solve is the main reason behind the ongoing crisis of the system of international institutions and global security, the Russian Lower House speaker has said.

The synthesis of ignorance and arrogance multiplied by the blockade of inconvenient information and sometimes by outright slander has already brought forth tragedies in the Middle East and Central Asia and in other regions of the world. Besides, it caused a misbalance in the whole system of international institutions, including those in the security sphere,” State Duma chairman Sergey Naryshkin said at the chamber’s Monday session with political experts.

As a result, the whole world is in a crisis situation,” he said.

A very demonstrative and even symbolic example is the great number of anecdotal statements made by the US State Department on the situation in Ukraine. They all demonstrate how weak is their handling of the problems that they are rushing to solve,” Naryshkin said.

He also said that the attempts to ignore Russia’s opinion on major international issues were counterproductive and useless.

I think that Russia can and should make a special input in practically all discussions on key international problems. This is how it has been for centuries and even for that sole reason the attempts to isolate Russia, to shrug off Russia’s opinion, are both counterproductive and useless,” Naryshkin said.

Naryshkin’s statement came shortly after German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the press that he considered it impossible to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Group of Seven summit this year, as suggested by German leftist politicians.

Also on Monday, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that Russia was open for interaction with foreign nations even though it did not intend to impose its participation on international summits.

The President has repeatedly stated that we had never had in mind to impose ourselves on someone in any possible format,” Rossiiskaya Gazeta quoted Peskov as saying. “As before, we are open for all types of cooperation and interaction. We have been open and we remain open,” he said.


YouTube Video


Latin America Gathers to Gripe About U.S.

4 Mar 30, 2015 1:30 PM EDT

Journalists are being silenced in MexicoVenezuela and Ecuador. Corruption has seeped into the highest offices in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Thanks to gerrymandering, elections are the Latin autocrats'  to lose, and simply standing up to Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro can earn you a go-to-jail card or worse.

So when leaders of the 35 nations of the Western Hemisphere gather in Panama City for the seventh Summit of the Americas on April 10 and 11, they will have plenty to talk about. Whether Luis Almagro, the new secretary general of the parley's sponsor, the Organization of the American States, can turn the talk to the region's real problems is doubtful.

Latin leaders often disagree, but the one axis of indignation is their resentment of the U.S.

That's fueled partially by a Latin article of faith: Amigos don't criticize amigos. "The United States doesn't understand that no country has the right to certify the conduct of any other," said Ernesto Samper, general secretary of the Union of South American Nations, one of the many competing regional compacts that exclude the U.S. and Canada.

Such deference may be the Latin version of mutual assured destruction. "No one wants to antagonize neighbors whose support he may one day need," Diego Arria, a former Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations, told me.

Three months ago, U.S. President Barack Obama shook that cozy consensus by announcing rapprochement with Cuba. That was long overdue but also shrewd diplomacy, for Cuba's absence from the hemispheric table and the half-century U.S. embargo on the island had been twin sticks for Latin leaders out to thrash the yanquis and deflect attention from the mess at home.

Yet, by announcing sanctions on March 9 against seven high-profile Venezuelans, Obama may have sabotaged his own game. Maduro got a free sympathy bump, and tender talks between Cuba and the U.S. over normalizing relations were abruptly suspended.

Latin Americans' rancor toward the U.S. undercuts the OAS's boldest document, which holds that "the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy, and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it." 

Drafted in 2001, the charter was meant to breathe new life into an organization  seen, rightly for a time, as Washington's mouthpiece. Hugo Chavez came along in 1999 and started his so-called Bolivarian alliance, powered by petrodollars, anti-yanqui bombast and a caudillo's interpretation of democracy and the rule of law.

To the Bolivarians, ballots were a blank check: Once elected, leaders were cleared to stack courts, muzzle dissent and rewrite the constitution. The sole reason to invoke the charter was an outright coup d'etat. So it was in 2009, when Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya, a Chavez ally, was ousted at rifle point on orders from the Supreme Court and packed off in his pajamas to Costa Rica.

But what of Venezuela, where the Maduro government has crushed street protestors and jailed political opponents such as Caracas mayor Antonio Ledezma, snatched from his desk last month by intelligence police? "That was nothing if not a sub-national coup d'etat," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas.

The Summit also isn't helped by the fact that the OAS has been shrink-wrapped into innocuousness. Once touted as the most important forum in the Americas, the 67-year-old compact has become a continental wind chamber, howling over Cold War-vintage outrages even as the group bleeds allegiance and credibility.

The oldest and largest diplomatic body in the Americas -- stretching from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia -- is a house divided and pauperized. Brazil, a charter member, owes $8.1 million in back dues and pulled its ambassador in 2011. Venezuela hasn't paid up in two years and renounced the group's American Convention on Human Rights in 2012. "The OAS has lost its meaning," Guillermo Cochez, Panama's former ambassador to the group, told me. "If it cannot show its relevance, it might as well shut down."

In his 10-year mandate, outgoing secretary general Jose Miguel Insulza was unable to halt the decline. Whether Almagro will fare any better is unclear. A career diplomat who served as Uruguay's ambassador to China and then as its foreign minister, he's had a distinguished foreign service career, but that might not be enough. "Almagro is a smart man and a cautious one," said former Mexican diplomat Jorge Guajardo, who also served in Beijing. "The OAS needs a bold man." 

To contact the author on this story:
Mac Margolis at

To contact the editor on this story:
Maria LaMagna at


Causing genocide to protect us from terror

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found at Follow him on Twitter

Published time: March 30, 2015 12:52
An Iraqi family watches U.S. soldiers in in Baquba early June 28, 2007.  (Reuters/Goran Tomasevic)

An Iraqi family watches U.S. soldiers in in Baquba early June 28, 2007. (Reuters/Goran Tomasevic)

A report called Body Count has revealed that at least 1.3 million people have lost their lives as a result of the US-led “war on terror” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s a report which should have made front page news across the world.

In the comprehensive 101 page document ‘Body Count,’

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, have produced figures for the number of people killed from September 11, 2001 until the end of 2013.

The findings are devastating: the in-depth investigation concludes that the ‘war on terror‘ has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan. As awful as that sounds, the total of 1.3 million deaths does not take into account casualties in other war zones, such as Yemen - and the authors stress that the figure is a “conservative estimate”.

“The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely,” the executive summary says.

Even if we take the lower figure of 1.3 million deaths, that’s still approximately 10 times greater than the figures propagated up to now by the media and NGOs. 1.3 million Iraqis equates to 5 percent of the population, the equivalent to 3.2 million Britons being killed following a foreign invasion.

One of the most sickening parts of the report is a paragraph about drone attacks on Pakistan entitled ‘Festive Parties as Targets’ on Page 94.

“The presence of noncombatants at these entirely peaceful assemblies is totally ignored. Frequently, the first drone attack is followed by a second one an hour or two later, directed against people who are searching for survivors and trying to find the dead in order to bury them.”

In one such attack ten of the children killed were between five and ten years old.

The report certainly makes shocking reading but it fully vindicates those who have always maintained that the numbers of people killed in the ‘the war on terror‘, and particularly the figures in Iraq, had been deliberately played down by supporters of Western “intervention”.

Media Lens is definitely owed an apology by its neocon/ ‘liberal interventionist’ critics (as indeed are the authors of an earlier report published in 2006 by the renowned medical journal The Lancet which was dismissed by George Bush and Tony Blair of not being credible), but of course they won’t get one.

The war lobby have ‘moved on’ from Iraq and is now focusing its attention on demonizing Russia and further attempts to remove the Assad government in Syria via the imposition of ‘no-fly zones’. It’s interesting isn’t it that those who can tell us to the nearest thousand how many people have died in Syria (in order to propagandize for another Western ‘humanitarian intervention‘), have little or no interest in the Iraq death toll, a country where there was a full-scale Western ‘intervention’.

We remember how US General Tommy Franks, who led the illegal invasion, arrogantly declared “We don‘t do body counts.” How very convenient not to record the number of people your military interventions kill.

“Officially ignored are casualties, injured or killed, involving enemy combatants and civilians,” writes Dr Hans-C. von Sponeck, a former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, in his preface to Body Count. “This, of course, comes as no surprise. It is not an oversight but a deliberate omission. The U.S. authorities have kept no known records of such deaths. This would have destroyed the arguments that freeing Iraq by military force from a dictatorship, removing al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and eliminating safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal areas has prevented terrorism from reaching the US homeland, improved global security and advanced human rights, all at “defendable costs”.

Boys walk through the rubble of destroyed homes in Buner district which is located about 220 km (137 miles) by road northwest of Pakistan's capital Islamabad, September 14, 2009. (Reuters/Faisal Mahmood)

Boys walk through the rubble of destroyed homes in Buner district which is located about 220 km (137 miles) by road northwest of Pakistan's capital Islamabad, September 14, 2009. (Reuters/Faisal Mahmood)

Body Count gives us 2 million reasons why we should not allow the neocon architects of the “war on terror” and the journalists who peddled pro-war propaganda to ‘move on’ from the carnage they have caused.

Let’s be clear that what we are talking about here is genocide. It’s a genocide caused by military campaigns which were allegedly about protecting us from “terrorism” and making the world a safer place but in fact did neither. 2,996 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks, but that number has been dwarfed by the number of people who have lost their lives in the US-led wars which followed. In fact Body Count reveals that between 2004 and October 2012 between 2,318 and 2,912 people were killed in US drone attacks on Pakistan, a great many of whom were civilians.

In addition to the 2 million killed in the 'wars on terror' investigated in Body Count (but which more accurately should be called ‘wars OF terror’), we must also add in the 50,000 or so who have lost their lives in Libya both during and after the NATO “humanitarian” military intervention of 2011.

We must not forget either the millions who have been made refugees, or the way that Western military intervention in the Middle East has enabled the rise of groups such as Islamic State. Body Count’s death toll, it’s worth pointing out, does not include deaths among the 3 million refugees from the Iraq war subjected to privations.

Afghan children play on a street in Kabul November 7, 2001. (Reuters/Stringer)

Afghan children play on a street in Kabul November 7, 2001. (Reuters/Stringer)

All things considered, the neocons and their ‘liberal interventionist’ allies are responsible for the greatest amount of death, destruction and human misery on this planet since the dark days of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler - whose “illegally invade a different country every couple of years” foreign policy they have emulated. Yet the war lobby is still there in positions of power and influence, urging more ‘interventions’ as if nothing had happened.

The situation can be likened to Nazis being left in prominent positions in Germany after World War Two - they were of course put on trial - but unlike the Nazis, the neocons and ‘liberal interventionists’ have never been held to account for the deaths their wars have caused and so the bloodshed continues.

What ‘Body Count’ proves to us is that the true humanitarian foreign policy is a non-interventionist one. We need to return urgently to a system of international relations in which the waging of aggressive war is regarded as the ultimate crime. The judges at Nuremberg in 1946, repeating the words of Chief US Prosecutor Robert Jackson, said that “to initiate a war of aggression… is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

In the last fifteen years or so, beginning with the 1999 bombardment of Yugoslavia, another illegal act carried out by the US and its allies, we’ve been told by our neocon/faux-left elite that ‘not-intervening’ is a greater crime than launching a war - but ‘Body Count’ provides evidence of just how morally bankrupt that argument is.

Those warmongers, who deny the genocide which has taken place - and which is meticulously detailed in Body Count, need to be publicly shamed and treated with the opprobrium they deserve. We must boycott media outlets and newspapers- like the ones owned by Rupert Murdoch - that endlessly beat the drums of war.

Page 46 of Body Count specifically mentions the Murdoch-owned Times newspaper for “regurgitating old accusations” against The Lancet report on Iraqi war deaths, which said that around 655,000 people, had died up to June 2006.

We need to be ready to link to Body Count whenever neocons and the fake-left have the nerve to lecture us on the need for further ‘humanitarian’ military interventions. The report, on page 53 quotes Les Roberts, co-author of The Lancet study, speaking at a hearing in the German Bundestag organized by the Left Party parliamentary group:

“When the President of Sudan denies widespread massacres in Darfur, when President Ahmadinejad downplays the Holocaust, we are all appalled. Please do not allow Germany to be associated with the Americans doing the same thing as part of their so-called war on terror.”

We must also do all we can to see that the architects of the ‘war on terror’ are arrested for war crimes. A website here offers a cash reward for anyone attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of Tony Blair. It’s an obscenity that this man, with the blood of so many innocents on his hands, is still at liberty, and has accumulated a personal fortune since stepping down as Prime Minister in 2007.

Americans, sick of how their country has been hijacked by the endless war lobby, need to focus on bringing their war-criminal ex-President George W. Bush to justice; we in Britain must focus on Blair.

We also need to counter elite attempts to turn the attention away from Western crimes to crimes committed by other groups in which less people lost their lives.

There’s been talk in European establishment circles of making Srebrenica genocide denial a criminal offence, but as terrible as that massacre was, the indisputable fact is that far more people have been killed by the US and its allies in subsequent years. If Srebrenica genocide denial is made an offence, but denying the genocide caused by the US-led ‘war on terror’ is not, then the double standards will be there for all to see.

The difficulty of the task of exposing and publicizing genocide caused by Western military interventions can be demonstrated by the lack of media coverage Body Count has received. What should have been a major news story has been all but ignored. Independent US researcher David Peterson, co-author of ‘The Politics of Genocide’, noted on March 27:

“I just ran a Factiva database search for mentions of the (Body Count) report. As best I can tell, within the universe of wire services and newspapers archived by the Factiva database, only four different English-language media have reported the existence of this document, and in these cases, two reports were picked up by two media.”

It seems that some genocides really are more important than others. We can only imagine what the coverage would have been like if Russia had launched wars in a 12 year period which had caused 2 million deaths. Or if a black African leader of whom the West doesn’t approve, such as Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, had been involved.

But it’s the US and its allies who have caused this genocide so we’re expected to keep quiet and focus instead on the ‘crimes‘ of the latest ‘official enemy‘.


Washington: Assad must go  


  • Agency eighth day
  • March 13, 2015, 14:23
Washington: Assad must go

((Eighth day))

The United States renewed on Thursday, inviting them to step down, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, built on the fourth anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict in Syria as "brave Syrians in the face of tyranny."

Said State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Bsaki "four years ago, Assad's regime responded to the Syrians demand more freedom and reforms, continuing brutality and repression and destruction."

She added, "As we have said for a long time, Assad must go and be replaced through a negotiated political transition represents the Syrian people."

The spokeswoman stressed that Assad's departure is a condition "for full stability" in Syria.

She continued, "On the occasion of this painful anniversary, we remember all those who are suffering and brave Syrians who are struggling against tyranny and fighting for a future marked by respect for fundamental rights, tolerance and prosperity."

And hosts a Friday meeting between US foreign individuals representing the Syrian expatriate officials in the Syrian opposition, including former President of the Syrian government temporary Ghassan Hito. | ST |


US attacks potential UK membership of China-led World Bank rival

Published time: March 13, 2015 12:25

A general view of the signing ceremony of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing October 24, 2014. (Reuters/Takaki Yajima)

The UK has applied to become the first Western participant in the China-led Asian Infrastructural Investment Bank (AIIB). However, the decision was given the cold shoulder by the US which sees the AIIB as rival to the Western financial system.

"Joining the AIIB at the founding stage will create an unrivalled opportunity for the UK and Asia to invest and grow together," said UK Finance Minister George Osborne in a statement Thursday.

Osborne insisted Britain should become a founding member of the new bank, assuring that its policy is transparent and it has an essential part in providing finance for Asian development.

David Cameron said Friday the decision was in the UK’s national interest.

The UK Treasury rejected the idea that Britain’s decision was spontaneous, adding that there had been “at least a month of extensive consultation” at the G7 level, and even that US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew participated in the negotiations.

However, the decision saw a prompt reaction from the US, said the FT on Thursday referring to an unnamed senior US official who expressed concern over the British decision being taken after "virtually no consultation with the US.”

"We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China," the FT quoted the US official as saying.

AIIB was founded in October 2014 by China and 20 other Asian countries, including India, Singapore, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan. China expects to officially launch AIIB by the end of next year. The bank will allocate money for the development of roads system, telecommunication and other infrastructure projects in the poorer regions of Asia. At the initial stage AIIB will focus on creating a ‘New Silk Road’ that will include a number of trade routes to Europe.

Asia gaining momentum

The establishment of AIIB initially proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping is a key tool in China's efforts to increase its influence in the region. In addition to the AIIB, China is the driving force behind last year’s creation of a BRICS New Development Bank and is promoting a $40 billion Silk Road Fund to finance economic integration with Central Asia.

The bank is aimed at creating an alternative for Western financial institutions and increase competition in the region, since Asia already has a major lender the Asian Development Bank. Japan, China’s major rival in the region, is the biggest shareholder in ADB along with the US.

The idea of creating a bank to rival the Asian Development Bank has caused resistance from the United States, which called for its allies to stay away from the AIIB.

Japan, Australia and South Korea haven’t announced their decisions, while the Australian media reports that Washington has put pressure on Canberra not to participate.

South Korean Vice Finance Minister Joo Hyung Hwan told reporters on Thursday that his country is still discussing the possibility of membership with China and other countries.

Changing attitude to China

In 2013 during a visit to Beijing George Osborne said he wanted to “change Britain’s attitude to China.”

The issue of bonds in yuan by the UK government in October 2014 was the first by a Western government. The desire to establish the City of London as a platform for overseas business in the yuan also proves Britain’s willingness to foster stronger commercial relations with China.

However, the pursuit of broader cooperation has seen a negative reaction coming from US, as it fears the rapidly developing Asian economies, primarily China, could challenge Washington-based global institutions.

The relationship between the US and UK have been at the core of Western policy for decades, although they’ve recently become tense over the UK’s cut in defense spending that could soon drop below the 2 percent of GDP target set by NATO.


Crazed Washington Drives the World to the Final War

Crazed Washington Drives the World to the Final War

Paul Craig Roberts

John Pilger is the kind of well-informed, hard-hitting journalist with gobs of integrity that no longer exists in the Western mainstream media. He has the most distinguished career of all in the business.

In the article below he brings stunning information to one of my own themes–the creation by Washington and its NATO vassals of an artificial reality consisting entirely of propaganda into which Washington has placed the entire Western world and all outside who inspire to be part of it. Westerners live in The Matrix, and the presstitutes keep them there. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the TV channels perform as agents (as in the Matrix film) actively suppressing any glimmer of factual reality.

Western people have no comprehension of the real reasons for Washington’s murderous interventions in Yugoslavia, Middle East, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Indonesia, or Latin America. The most transparent lies are fed to people too ignorant to recognize the lies. The lies have cost huge numbers of deaths and injuries and are leading directly to war with Russia and China.

It is probably too late to stop this war. The war is inevitable because Washington’s doctrine of world hegemony does not permit the existence of other strong countries with independent foreign policies. Unless the House-of-Card US economy collapses, the only way Russia and China can avoid war is to accept Washington’s overlordship.

John Pilger himself speaks of growing up inside The Matrix as did all of us:
“I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine.” I doubt that even the most determined of us ever become completely free of the disinformation in which we are indoctrinated. Pilger himself still shows traces of it when he assumes that Hitler started World War II by invading Europe when in fact Great Britain and France initiated World War II when they declared war on Germany. Hitler’s invasion of Europe was a response to the declaration of war on Germany. From day one the propaganda was that Germany started World War II by rolling up the British and French armies. This lie was enshrined in 1946 by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the Tribunal defined “the supreme international crime” to be “to initiate a war of aggression” and ascribed this crime to Germany.

The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes are more guilty of “the supreme international crime” than was National Socialist Germany. Today the crazed Washington warmongers are driving toward war with Russia.

Those pathetic Americans who think that their government is so good and pure and only commits wrongs by mistake and would never “kill its own people” need to remember the response of the US high command to the report that American POWs were in Nagasaki: “Targets previously assigned for Centerboard (the atomic bomb attack) remain unchanged.” Washington cared no more about its own soldiers than Washington cared about the innocent civilians of a country whose government was desperately trying to surrender. If you have any doubt that the entire history of the United States is one of murder and mayhem, you need to read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.

The Nazis have returned. They are ensconced in the governments in Washington, London, and Germany. The New Nazis have made certain that there has been war every year of this 21st century.

Pilger tells the truth about these wars:

Why the rise of fascism is again the issue — John Pilger

26 February 2015

The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.

“To initiate a war of aggression…,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.

Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.

In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that “most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten”.

The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a “rebel” bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: “We came, we saw, he died.” His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning “genocide” against his own people. “We knew… that if we waited one more day,” said President Obama, “Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”

This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda”. Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato’s inferno, described by David Cameron as a “humanitarian intervention”.

Secretly supplied and trained by Britain’s SAS, many of the “rebels” would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.

For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi’s true crime was Libya’s economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa’s greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to “enter” Africa and bribe African governments with military “partnerships”.

Following Nato’s attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, “confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency”.

The “humanitarian war” against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing “genocide” against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and “the spirit of the Second World War”. The West’s heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia’s infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the “holocaust”. The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines”. A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The “holocaust” was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its “natural market” in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.

In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo “peace” conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer’s duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia – a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation – and the implementation of a “free-market economy” and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.

Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America’s modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as “sanctions”. The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.

“Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” These were opening words of Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. “The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion,” said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed – civilians and soldiers – during Obama’s time as president.

The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives’, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation.” He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter’s National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan’s first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?

In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.

The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan’s doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. “Every girl,” recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, “could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported.”

The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, “there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]”. Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the “threat of a promising example”.

On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal “fundamentalist” groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan’s first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests… would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.” The italics are mine.

The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar’s specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a “freedom fighter”.

Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and “destabilise” the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, “a few stirred up Muslims”. His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called “Operation Cyclone”. Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah – who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help – was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.

The “blowback” of Operation Cyclone and its “few stirred up Muslims” was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the “war on terror”, in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer’s message was and remains: “You are with us or against us.”

The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its “free fire zones”, “body counts” and “collateral damage”. In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians (“gooks”) were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.

Today, the world’s greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama’s victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA “kill list” presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each “hit” is registered on a faraway console screen as a “bugsplat”.

“For goose-steppers,” wrote the historian Norman Pollock, “substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.”

Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,” said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, “The sovereign is he who decides the exception.” This sums up Americanism, the world’s dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.

The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the “tragedy” of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places – just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood’s violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, ‘American Sniper’, which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a “patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days”.

There are no heroic movies about America’s embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens – as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the “father” of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.

In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its “new wave” hailed by the enforcer as “nationalists”.

This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include  Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get “the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry”. If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.

No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as “the minister for defeatism”. It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.  

Nuland’s coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia’s historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea – illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 – voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.

At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping “the violence” caused by the “Russian invasion”. The Nato commander, General Breedlove – whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove – announced that 40,000 Russian troops were “massing”. In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.

These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long sought a federation that reflects the country’s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not “separatists” but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous “states” are a reaction to Kiev’s attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.

On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as “another bright day in our national history”. In the American and British media, this was reported as a “murky tragedy” resulting from “clashes” between “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) and “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).

The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington’s new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says”. Obama congratulated the junta for its “restraint”.

If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained “pariah” role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine’s top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: “The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army”.  There were “individual citizens” who were members of “illegal armed groups”, but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev’s Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for “full scale war” with nuclear-armed Russia.

On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell’s fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America’s most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, “No European government, since Adolf Hitler’s Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West’s media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established… If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason.”

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: “The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack… In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.” In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. “Putin must be stopped,” said the headline. “And sometimes only guns can stop guns.” He conceded that the threat of war might “nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement”; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that “America has the best kit”.

In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, “has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones.” He lauded Blair as a “Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist”. In 2006, he wrote, “Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran.”

The outbursts – or as Garton-Ash prefers, his “tortured liberal ambivalence” – are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash’s piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: “The F-35. GREAT For Britain”. This American “kit” will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world.  In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev’s new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas “investment”. She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden’s son is on the board of Ukraine’s biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine’s rich farming soil.

Above all, they want Ukraine’s mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia’s long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country’s economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.

The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.


Paul Craig Roberts – The World Is Now On The Cusp Of Total War

February 09, 2015
Paul Craig Roberts – The World Is Now On The Cusp Of Total War

As the world grows increasingly concerned about the fighting in Ukraine, especially in the aftermath of a large bomb being detonated last night, today former U.S. Treasury official, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, warned that the world is now on the cusp of total war.

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Former U.S. Treasury Official

February 9 (King World News) – At this time we do not know the outcome of the meeting in Moscow between Merkel, Hollande, and Putin.

The meeting with Putin was initiated by Merkel and Hollande, because they are disturbed by the aggressive position that Washington has taken toward Russia and are fearful that Washington is pushing Europe into a conflict that Europe does not want.  However, Merkel and Hollande cannot resolve the NATO/EU/Ukraine situation unless Merkel and Hollande are willing to break with Washington's foreign policy and assert the right as sovereign states to conduct their own foreign policy.

KWN Roberts X 2:9:2015

Putin-Merkel-Hollande Meeting

Unless Washington’s war-lust has finally driven Europeans to take control over their own fate, the most likely outcome of the Putin-Merkel-Hollande meeting will be more meetings that go nowhere. If Merkel and Hollande are not negotiating from a position of independence, one likely outcome after more meetings will be that Merkel and Hollande will say, in order to appease Washington, that they tried to reason with Putin but that Putin was unreasonable.  

Based on Lavrov's meeting in Munich with the Europeans, the hope for any sign of intelligence and independence in Europe seems misplaced. Russian diplomacy relied on European independence, but as Putin has acknowledged Europe has shown no independence from Washington.  Putin has said that negotiating with vassals is pointless. Yet, Putin continues to negotiate with vassals.

KWN Roberts V 2:9:2015

French Oppose Washington

Perhaps Putin’s patience is finally paying off. There are reports that Germany and France oppose Washington’s plan to send weapons to Ukraine. French president Hollande now supports autonomy for the break-away republics in Ukraine. His predecessor, Sarkozy, said that Crimea chose Russia and we cannot blame them, and that the interests of Americans and Europeans diverge when it comes to Russia.  Germany’s foreign minister says that Washington’s plan to arm Ukraine is risky and reckless.  And on top of it all, Cyprus has offered Russia an air base.

We will see how Washington responds to the French statements that European interests with regard to Russia diverge from Washington’s. Washington does not recognize any valid interest except its own.  Therefore, it has been fruitless for Russia to negotiate with Washington and Washington's EU vassals.  To come to an agreement with Washington has required Russia's surrender to Washington's terms.  Russia must hand over Crimea and Russia’s warm water port, and Moscow must stand aside while the Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine, the "break-away" provinces, are slaughtered.  Russia must support the hostile regime in Kiev with loans, grants, and low gas prices.

That is the only deal Russia has been able to get from Washington, because the EU has supported Washington’s line.   With French presidents reportedly now saying, “We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” Europe is on the road to independence.

KWN Roberts IV 2:9:2015

False Flag Attack? 

Can Europe stay on this road, or can Washington bring Germany and France back in line?  A false flag attack could do it. Washington is a control freak, and the neoconservative ideology of US hegemony has made Washington even more of a control freak. Europe with an independent foreign policy means a great loss of control by Washington.  If Washington retains or regains control, I see two clear options for Russia.

Bankrupt West 

One is to disengage totally from the West.  The West is a morally depraved  and economically bankrupt entity.  There is no reason for a decent country like Russia to wish to be integrated with the evil that is the West.  Russia has the option of abandoning the dollar payments system and all financial relationships with the West. 

By trying to be part of the West, Russia made a strategic error that endangered the independence of Russia.  Russia found herself dependent on Western financial systems that gave Washington power over Moscow and allowed Washington to place economic sanctions on Russia. 

It was Russia's desire to be part of the West that made possible Washington's sanctions and Washington's propaganda against Russia. It was Russia's desire to be accepted by the West that produced the weak Russian response to Washington's audacious coup in Kiev.  Washington is using Ukraine against Russia. After seizing control in Kiev, it is unlikely that Washington will accept a peaceful solution in which the "break-away" provinces are permitted to become autonomous republics of Ukraine.

Is negotiation with Washington possible when Washington only wants conflict?

King World News -- Putin Draws Line In The Sand As West's Big Oil Companies Push For War

Russia Can Destroy NATO

Russia's other clear option is to destroy NATO by ceasing to sell energy resources to NATO members. The countries would choose energy over NATO membership. 

Why should Russia empower its obvious enemies by meeting their energy needs?  Russia could also encourage Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal to default on their loans and rely on Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank for financing. China holds a massive amount of dollars.  Why not use them to break up Washington’s European empire?

Russia could also default on its loans to the West. Why should Russia pay an enemy that is trying to destroy her? 

If Europe cannot gain its independence, at some point Russia will either have to surrender to Washington or demonstrate decisive action that causes Washington’s European vassal states to understand the cost of vassalage to Washington and decide to abandon Washington in the interest of their own survival.

KWN Roberts VI 2:9:2015

Russia Can Forget About The West 

Alternatively, Russia can forget about the West and integrate with China and the East. Considering Washington’s hegemonic posture, there is no counterparty for Russia’s diplomacy.

Predictions are difficult, because policies can have unintended consequences and produce black swan events. For example, the Islamic State is the unintended consequence of Washington’s wars in the Muslim world. The Islamic State was created out of the Islamist forces that Washington assembled against Gaddafi in Libya. These forces were then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria.  As Muslims flocked to ISIS's banner and its military prowess grew, ISIS realized that it was a new and independent force consisting of radicalized Muslims. 

Radicalized Muslims are tired of Western domination and control of Muslim lands.  Out of ISIS's self-awareness, a new state has been created, redrawing the Middle Eastern boundaries created by the British and French.

It is curious that Iran and Russia regard the Islamic State as a more dangerous enemy than Washington and are supporting Washington’s moves against the Islamic State. As the Islamic State is capable of disrupting Washington’s policy in the Middle East, Iran and Russia have an incentive to finance and arm the Islamic State. It is in Washington, not in the Islamic State, where Sauron resides and is gathering up the rings in order to control them all.

KWN Roberts III 2:9:2015

EU Driving Greece Into The Ground

In their attempts to negotiate with Europeans, Putin and Lavrov should notice the total unwillingness of the EU to negotiate with its own members.  Right in front of our eyes we see Merkel and Hollande driving their fellow Greek EU compatriots into the ground.

The EU has told the new Greek government that the EU doesn’t care a whit about Greece and its people.  The Europeans only care that they don’t get stuck with the cost of the bad loans the German and Dutch banks made to Greek governments in the past.

As I described in my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, one purpose of the “sovereign debt crisis” is to establish the principle that private lenders are not responsible for their bad judgment.  Instead, the peoples of the country who were not parties to the loans are responsible.  The EU is using the crisis not only to protect powerful private interests, but also to establish that over-indebted countries lose control of their fiscal affairs to the EU.  In other words, the EU is using the crisis to centralize authority in order to destroy country sovereignty.

KWN Roberts VII 2:9:2015

Washington Overthrowing Governments

As Washington and the EU do not respect the sovereignty of Greece, one of its own, why does the Russian government think that Washington and the EU respect the sovereignty of Russia or Ukraine?  Or of India, Brazil and other South American countries, or China. Currently Washington is trying to overthrow the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina. 

Washington respects no one.  Thus, talking to Washington is a waste of time. Is this a game Russia wants to play? ***ALSO JUST RELEASED: Marc Faber Unveils The Biggest Surprise For 2015 And The Greatest Danger Facing The World Today CLICK HERE.

Also, KWN will be releasing interviews all day today with Marc Faber and others.

© 2015 by King World News®. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.  However, linking directly to the blog page is permitted and encouraged.

March 12th 2015  rev- 1