Month: March 2015

U.S. to use private contractors to supply weapons and soldiers to Ukraine – hacker group

Posted by

0

From Sputnik News, February 28, 2015

Washington plans to use Western private military contractors to deliver weapons to Ukraine. Once arms are delivered, these companies will send their “volunteers” who will come to make good use of these weapons.

The United States plans to use private military contractors to deliver arms to Kiev, Ukrainian hacker group CyberBerkut reports.

“We, CyberBerkut, got access to files stored on the electronic device that belonged to an employee of the private military contractor “Green Group”, who recently visited Kiev with a US military delegation. The documents reveal that the United States is still mulling over the idea of supplying lethal weapons to Kiev, but first, it would like to gain the support of its European allies.” – said the statement published on CyberBerkut website.Washington plans to use Western private military contractors to deliver weapons to Ukraine. These companies, of course, would deliver arms “voluntarily”, out of kindness. Moreover, once weapons are delivered to Ukraine, these companies will send volunteers to come and fight against Donbas forces in Eastern Ukraine, CyberBerkut says.

CyberBerkut is a group of anonymous hackers who oppose the current government in Kiev. The group has already done a few high-profile hacks that changed the course of conversation about the situation in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland’s famous words “F**k the EU!” and her secret plot to assemble a post-coup government in Kiev became public after CyberBerkut leaked the recording. The group also leaked information about snipers at the Maidan Square, shooting indiscriminately at both police and protesters last year. Last month, CyberBerkut obtained classified information that exposed massive casualties and terrible morale among Kiev forces attacking eastern Ukraine.

Source:
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150228/1018889209.html#ixzz3TOyddx4x

Also:
Hackers Leak US Document Scans With Plans to Supply Weapons to Kiev

Were the props and slogans for Nemtsov’s memorial march prepared before or after his death?

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ
March 3, 2015

March 2, 2015
El Murid 
Translated by Kristina Rus

 Here is a thought. Goncharenko, of course is trouble. But if we shift our attention from his face and look below, then this photo of March 1st begs a question.

A t-shirt with quality four-color print and the words in the Ukrainian language. March on March 1st. The murder took place almost at midnight on February 28. A little more then 24 hours before this photo.

That is, someone choking on tears, had to on February 28 run to order a batch of these t-shirts, and prudently – a batch in the Ukrainian language. He had to do a layout, divided by colors, to make the t-shirt, pick it up from the shop and organize the distribution to the right people – you will not hand out such an expensive item to random people. Ukrainian for Ukrainians, Russian for non-Ukrainians. At the same time to place an order for standard pictures of the deceased, to make a large number of the same posters. While some of the posters (again typographic quality) was created on the basis of slogans suggested on the evening of February 28 (i.e., a half a day before the March), suggested by Khodorkovsky’s “Open Russia” on Twitter:

“No Words”:

Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере

“I am not afraid”:

Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере
“Propaganda Kills”:
Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере
And, most catchy “Fight”, which is a play off Nemtsov’s first name “Boris”, with one extra letter at the end.
Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере

At 22:53 on February 28 the masses got their slogans to use at the March, and after 12 hours (of which 8 are at night) the March is provided with a huge number of posters (with handles already taped to the canvas) with those same slogans.

Actually, yesterday’s march was just full of such details. The wonders of operations and instant reaction. As if they knew.

I wonder, were these t-shirts and all these posters ordered exactly on February 28 or before? So to speak, during his lifetime?

Kristina Rus: This entire circus looks like a part of one big production, were the picture is the goal and media is a part of the act

 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/were-props-and-slogans-for-nemtsovs.html

 

Clinton Foundation rakes in cash from right-wing regimes, super-rich, corporations

Posted by

0

From World Socialist Web Site, February 28, 2015
By Tom Hall

Several press reports last week highlight details of the major donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, including right-wing Persian Gulf monarchies, big defense contractors, and an array of corporations and governments seeking influence with the US political establishment—and potentially in the next White House.

Founded in 2001 after the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president, the Foundation has raised and distributed huge amounts of money, reaching nearly $2 billion. After a brief drop in fundraising coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, when most foreign donations were discouraged because of conflict-of-interest concerns, donations jumped $100 million in 2013, reaching $262 million.

The list of the Foundation’s largest donors, available on the Foundation’s website, is a virtual who’s who of the super-rich and major corporations. The largest donors, having given over $25 million since 2001, include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, well known for its leading role in the dismantling of public education, Chicago multimillionaire and top Democratic Party donor Fred Eychaner, and, strangely, the Dutch national lottery.

Major corporations appear in spades in the list of 168 individuals and organizations that have given more than $1 million. Defense contractors such as Boeing and Booz Allen Hamilton, both gave between $1 and $5 million, joined by Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and the American Federation of Teachers.

The reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies have poured tens of millions into the Clinton Foundation, including Saudi Arabia ($10 to $25 million), Kuwait, ($5 to $10 million), Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates ($1 to $5 million). In addition, several groups and individuals close to the Saudi government have also made tens of millions in contributions.

The Clinton Foundation made an agreement with the Obama administration not to accept new donations from foreign sources during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, a policy which has now expired. However, tens of millions of overseas dollars continued to flow into the Foundation through an exemption which allowed existing donors to continue making contributions at a similar level.

Claims by Clinton Foundation donors that they were genuinely interested in charity are belied by the circumstances of many of the donations. For example, the Wall Street Journal cited an incident in 2009 in which Hillary Clinton convinced Russia to purchase 50 Boeing 737s; seven months later, Boeing made its first-ever donation to the Clinton Foundation, $900,000 to help “rebuild” Haiti’s school system. Perhaps admitting more than she intended, a Boeing spokeswoman said in a written statement, “Secretary Clinton did nothing for Boeing that former US presidents and cabinet secretaries haven’t done for decades.”

In another case, the Foundation received a $500,000 donation from the government of Algeria for its pro-market “relief” effort in Haiti. The Washington Post notes that the donation, which violated the Foundation’s earlier agreement with the Obama administration, came in the midst of a particularly heavy lobbying push from Algeria in Washington in the aftermath of a report by Clinton’s State Department condemning Algeria’s human rights record. The donation was more than the Algerian government spent on lobbying for the entire year.

Two years later, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied successfully on behalf of GE in its bids to construct power plants in Algeria, described by the company as “some of its largest power agreements in company history.” A month later, GE donated from $500,000 to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The focus in the media, especially from Journal and other ultra-right outlets, has been on the fact that foreign countries, companies and individuals comprise a third of the foundation’s major donors, implying that they are purchasing political influence through the Clintons. While there is a degree of truth to this, this is also a two-way street, as the Clinton Foundation is fully integrated into the political apparatus as an instrument of American imperialist foreign policy.

Instructive in this regard is their role in the “rebuilding” of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, in which some 300,000 died. The Clinton Foundation played a major role, with Bill Clinton himself co-chairing the panel that distributed all international aid to Haiti. The entire aid effort was used to ram through pro-market restructuring, while American and then UN “peacekeepers” patrolled the country to prevent any opposition from the population. The Obama administration made no objection to the Algerian donation to the Clinton Foundation for the simple reason that it was entirely in line with American foreign policy in Haiti.

The Clinton Foundation’s version of “charity” also involves imperialist intrigue. This included secret maneuvers last year against Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse, which ultimately led to his electoral defeat last month. The country’s former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, who joined the Clinton Foundation in 2005, played the major role in backroom deals that led to Maithripala Sirisena’s sudden departure from the government and announcement that he would be the “common opposition candidate.” Earlier this month Kumaratunga admitted that unnamed “foreign governments” had urged her to maneuver against Rajapakse.

During her time as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton took the lead in denouncing the Sri Lankan government’s “human rights record” in order to pressure it to move away from its ties with China as part of the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia.” She presented resolutions in 2011 and 2012 in her capacity as secretary of state demanding that the UN take action against Sri Lanka for human rights violations during the civil war against Tamil separatist guerrillas.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/clinton-foundation-raked-in-cash-from-right-wing-regimes-corporations/5434117

Google gives new meaning to the term “Orwellian”; becomes the Ministry of Truth

Posted by

0

Google has been invited into Iran. Does the Iranian government understand what this means —  in terms of privacy, in terms of Google’s CIA connections, in terms of the Internet of Things?

From No More Fake News, Reposted on Global Research
By Jon Rappaport, March 1, 2015

truth-the new hate speech

“…if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.” (1984, George Orwell)

The New Scientist has the stunning story (2/28/15, “Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links,” by Hal Hodson):

“THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free ‘news’ stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.”

Great idea, right?

Sure it is.

The author of the article lets the cat out of the bag right away with his comment about “anti-vaccination” websites.

These sites will obviously be shoved into obscurity by Google because they’re “garbage”…whereas “truthful” pro-vaccine sites will dominate top ranked pages on the search engine.

This is wonderful if you believe what the CDC tells you about vaccine safety and efficacy. The CDC: an agency that opens its doors every day with lies and closes them with more lies.

The New Scientist article continues: “A Google research team is adapting [a] model to measure the trustworthiness of a [website] page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the [ranking] system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. ‘A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,’ says the team…The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.”

Right. Google, researchers of truth. Assessors of trustworthiness. Who in the world could have a problem with that?

Answer: anyone with three live brain cells.

Here’s the New Scientist’s capper. It’s a beaut:

“The [truth-finding] software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.”

Right. Uh-huh. So Google, along with its friends at the CIA, will engineer a new and improved, greater flood of (dis)information across the Web. And this disinfo will constitute an overwhelming majority opinion…and will become the standard for measuring truth and trustworthiness.

Think about what kinds of websites will rise like foul cream to the top of Google page rankings:

“All vaccines are marvelously safe and effective, and parents who don’t vaccinate their kids should be prosecuted for felonies.”

“GMOs are perfectly safe. ‘The science’ says so.”

“The FBI has never organized a synthetic terror event and then stung the morons it encouraged.”

“Common Core is the greatest system of education yet devised by humans.”

“People who believe conspiracies exist have mental disorders.”

Continue reading →

What’s behind Ukraine’s secret weapons deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE)?

Posted by

0

From Global Research, February 25, 2015
By Eric Zuesse

U.S. President Barack Obama apparently is going ahead with his plan for NATO missiles to be placed in Ukraine aimed against Moscow, but found a way to do it that won’t violate the warnings by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin against Washington’s directly supplying those arms to Ukraine (such as is demanded of Obama by congressional Republicans, and even by a few hawkish Democrats — all passionate supporters of Hillary Clinton). Obama’s subordinate (or dependent local leader), the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, is now arranging to receive those weapons via a less direct channel; and this arrangement couldn’t happen if the U.S. White House were opposed to it. The idea might even have originated inside the White House.

On Tuesday, 24 February 2015, in Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates, Poroshenko placed the finishing touches on the purchase of Western, mainly U.S., weapons, via the UAE, from Western firms such as, perhaps, Lockheed, GE, Krupp, Euromissile, etc., which will be paid for by Western taxpayers, via IMF ‘loans’ to Ukraine, which money comes from taxpayer contributions to the IMF, but which ‘loans’ can never be paid back to the IMF — they’ll inevitably default, because these ‘loans’ are at the very end of the long line of creditors of Ukraine, which is a bankrupt country, having been looted for decades (and especially during the past year) by its aristocrats (called “oligarchs”), who have already spirited tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars off to Western tax-haven countries, so that only Ukraine’s public (who received little if any benefit from those debts of the Ukrainian Government) will pay even the pennies-on-the-dollars that Ukraine’s bondholders will be receiving (and the recipients will be only the holders of the oldest of Ukraine’s bonds, which won’t be the IMF, EU, or U.S., Ukraine’s post-coup ‘lenders’).

This is called the IMF’s “austerity” program, for looted nations such as Greece and Ukraine, and it holds sacred the thefts by aristocrats, while it transfers all of aristocrats’ losses off onto their respective publics, who (as Ukrainians now will) pay it via their stripped governmental services and hiked taxes; and these poor people then serve aristocrats as virtual slaves (low-wage labor), many of whom thus migrate to wealthier countries, which, in turn, reject the burden of caring for them, thus producing yet more resentments and hatreds against these poor people, regardless of how they behave.

Here is the way this Ukrainian arms deal works:

The deal itself was publicly, but only vaguely, announced on Tuesday, the 24th, along with “what Poroshenko described as a ‘very important negotiation about the facilitation of the United Arab Emirates investment in the Ukraine.’ He declined to provide specifics of the deal.” The reason why Arabic royals (in this case the Al Nahyan family that controls Abu Dhabi) are naturals for this — the logical persons to serve as the middle-men to sell Western-made weapons to Russia’s new (since the time of Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup) enemy, Ukraine — is that the U.S. aristocracy has, for at least 70 years, been allied with Sunni aristocracies, against, originally, the Soviet Union, and then Russia. Russia had been the chief supplier of oil and gas to the other Soviet republics; it was and is the local oil-and-gas giant. Whereas Russia’s aristocrats bonded instead with Shia Iran (which alliance was interrupted during 1953-79 by the CIA’s coup there and then the Shah’s ultimate overthrow and then the restoration of Iran’s alliance with Russia), the American aristocrats had bonded with Sunni Saudi Arabia, and with other Arab royals, in UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. So, with the exception of Armand Hammer’s Occidental Petreoleum, which bonded with Libya’s pro-Soviet Sunni anti-imperialist and anti-Western Muammar Gaddafi, Western oil companies generally allied with the Saud family, who had allied with the most intensely Sunni clergy of all, who were the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who had personally agreed in 1744, with Muhammad bin Saud, that the Sauds and Wahhabs would jointly control the Kingdom and ultimately the world — Wahhabs controlling the laws, and Sauds controlling the military.

In short: America’s aristocracy bonded with Sunni aristocrats, and Russia’s aristocracy bonded with Shia ones. Ukraine has now joined the Sunni alliance, and this is done with Obama’s blessing. Continue reading →

China sides with Russia over Ukraine conflict

Posted by

0

From Zero Hedge, February 27, 2015
By Tyler Durden

When it comes to the Ukraine proxy war, which started in earnest just about one year ago with the violent coup that overthrew then president Yanukovich and replaced him with a local pro-US oligarch, there has been no ambiguity who the key actors were: on the left, we had the west, personified by the US, the European Union, and NATO in general; while on the right we had Russia. In fact, if there was any confusion, it was about the role of that other “elephant in the room” – China.

To be sure, a question few asked throughout the Ukraine civil war is just whose side is China leaning toward. After all the precarious balance of power between NATO and Russia had resulted in a stalemate in which neither side has an obvious advantage (even as the Ukraine economy died, and its currency hyperinflated, waiting for a clear winner), and the explicit or implicit support of China to either camp would make all the difference in the world, not to mention the world’s most formidable axis.

Today we finally got the answer, and the winner is… this guy:

Xinhua reported that late on Thursday Qu Xing, China’s ambassador to Belgium, was quoted as blaming competition between Russia and the West for the Ukraine crisis, urging Western powers to “abandon the zero-sum mentality” with Russia.

Cited by Reuters, Xing said that Western powers should take into consideration Russia’s legitimate security concerns over Ukraine.

Reuters’ assessment of Xing speech: “an unusually frank and open display of support for Moscow’s position in the crisis.”

At least it is not a warning to the US to back off or else. Yet.

Speaking in very clear and explicit language, something diplomats are not used to doing, the Chinese ambassador said the “nature and root cause” of the crisis was the “game” between Russia and Western powers, including the United States and the European Union.

He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.

“The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real security concerns of Russia into consideration,” Qu was quoted as saying.

His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position. China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but Beijing has generally not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.

As noted above, China has long been very cautious not to be drawn into the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine’s future, not wanting to alienate a key ally. And yet, something changed overnight, with this very clear language, warning some could say, that China will no longer tolerate Pax Americana, and even the mere assumption of a unipolar western world, let alone the reality.

Qu’s comments take place just as talks between the United States and its European allies over harsher sanctions against Moscow.

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Western powers of trying to dominate and impose their ideology on the rest of world. The United States and European delegations slammed Moscow for supporting rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Qu said Washington’s involvement in Ukraine could “become a distraction in its foreign policy”.

And then, Qu’s slap in the face of Obama: “The United States is unwilling to see its presence in any part of the world being weakened, but the fact is its resources are limited, and it will be to some extent hard work to sustain its influence in external affairs.”

Especially if and when China decides to send a few peacekeepers of its own into Ukraine. You know – just to make sure US influence in external affairs isn’t “sustained” too much.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-27/china-just-sided-russia-over-ukraine-conflict

 

Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan – partners in world destruction

Posted by

0

A background article on marriage partners Robert Kagan – influential neo-conservative, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute, member of Project for a New American Century – and Victoria Nuland – Assistant Secretary of State and international troublemaker. Through their marriage and partnership, they have created crisis, pain, and death in the world.

No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

Since this article was written, more has come to light about Nuland’s involvement in Ukraine, her war-hyping work in Europe, and now her involvement in an aborted coup in Macedonia. Also, it is no surprise that  Brookings Institution has produced a report advocating lethal military aid to Ukraine [1]. Thank you to Wayne Madsen for this probing article.

From Strategic Culture Foundation
By Wayne Madsen, December 12, 2013______________

During America’s many overseas wars, volunteer women of the United Services Organization (USO), a group designed to boost the morale of U.S. troops in combat zones, served coffee and doughnuts to American soldiers. These women, called “doughnut dollies,” were on the scene in the South Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, has reprised the role of the “Doughnut Dolly” by distributing snacks to anti-government protesters on Maidan square in central Kyiv. Armed with a white plastic shopping bag full of biscuits, Nuland was trying to boost the morale of the protesters in what has become a virtual proxy war between the United States and Russia. Control of Ukraine by NATO has long been a gleam in the eye of American neo-conservative war hawks like Arizona Republican Senator John McCain who followed Nuland by a day among the Maidan protesters.

Following the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, many Americans believed that the age of the neo-cons was over. Neo-cons, nostalgic for the Cold War, put their own imprimatur on the George W. Bush presidency by having it adopt all the principles of neocon policy dogma, most notably a document known as the Project for the New American Century or “PNAC.” With fresh policy guidance from within the neo-con policymaking lairs of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, neocons like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Robert Kagan set about to plunge the United States into senseless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond in a never-ending “global war on terrorism.”

Kagan, although not as well-known as the others, continues to steer America into foreign policy fiascos such as U.S. involvement in the domestic affairs of Ukraine. Kagan has an ace-in-the-hole in stirring up tensions in Ukraine because his wife is none other than Victoria Nuland…

Nuland’s career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the interests of Russia’s ally, Serbia. After helping to lord over the final end of Yugoslavia, Nuland moved to develop U.S. foreign policy for the former Soviet Union. Ukraine landed right in the middle of Nuland’s target scope.

After the Clinton administration, Nuland went on to become Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal foreign policy adviser. Impressed with her anti-Russian and neo-con stance, Cheney recommended Nuland to be the U.S. ambassador to NATO. After the Bush administration, Nuland ensured that the neo-con apparatchiks continued to have a say in the new president’s foreign policy. Nuland was appointed as the special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in a further bid to confront Russia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Nuland as her press spokesman after Philip J. Crowley was forced to resign after he publicly complained about the military prison treatment of Army Private Bradley Manning, arrested and jailed for releasing classified State Department cables to WikiLeaks. Nuland, unlike Crowley, would ensure that neo-con swagger would dominate Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. That swagger became abundantly clear in the CIA’s coup against President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, the U.S.-led overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and U.S. support for uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with “talking points” explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland’s husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.

Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife’s continued presence in a Democratic administration when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign policy.

With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife, inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife’s activities from his perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain’s top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan’s influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.

Kagan’s writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia’s southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.

But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan’s brother, Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan was an “anti-corruption” adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan’s wife is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper “Doughnut Dolly” for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made “Orange Revolution II” than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland. Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America’s “Three Stooges” of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

[1] http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/02/ukraine-independence-russian-aggression

 

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-dolly-victoria-nuland.html

Tues. March 3: “Missile Defense & the Rising Danger of Nuclear War with Russia” in Washington D.C.

Posted by

0

From the Committee for the Republic:
_________________________
Empire Salon
with
Professor Ted Postol

“Missile Defense & the Rising Danger of Nuclear War with Russia”
____________________

Tuesday, March 3, 2015
6:30 p.m.
___________________________

1575 I Street NW
ASAE Building
Marriott Conference Center
(parking available in building)
Washington DC
___________________________
RSVP:
James@CommitteefortheRepublic.org
___________________________
The nation’s leading missile defense expert, MIT Professor Ted Postol, claims that the US missile defense program is the biggest and most dangerous scientific fraud in the history of modern American science.

 Postol argues that a balanced assessment of the costs and benefits of missile defense isn’t possible without an honest technical and military assessment. He can provide such an assessment. Postol believes that the US missile defense program has come to threaten the very security its advocates claim to protect.

The Committee for the Republic considers Postol’s charges to have such serious implications at a time of rising tensions in US-Russian relations that it has asked its chairman, Chas Freeman, to examine his claims with him in public.

Missile defense is aggressively promoted by an unholy alliance of government, industry, and academia: Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, MIT, National Academy of Sciences and both the Democratic and Republican parties. The program has taken on a life of its own. Postol’s appearance is an opportunity to explore the confluence of political competition, the private sector opportunity to make large profits without product performance standards, and academic opportunism to gain favor with large government and industrial funders.

In 2009, after initially expressing skepticism, President Obama reversed himself by announcing what he claimed is a new and radical approach to missile defense. Postol will explain why the radars in this system cannot properly track warheads and the interceptors cannot knock them down. Postol points out that the Missile Defense Agency agency has repeatedly misrepresented to Congress that long-range missile defenses can tell the difference between warheads and simple decoys. He will review the case that the agency has been rigging experiments and lying to Congress, allies, and Russia.
Postol will show that Obama has abandoned his long-standing commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons by committing the nation to an ambitious trillion-dollar nuclear modernization program. Obama’s nuclear modernization seeks to create the capability to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia. Postol argues that the US missile defense program is destabilizing nuclear deterrence in ways that raise the risk of nuclear war and has contributed to the downward spiral in the US-Russian relationship. He will show that this failure of leadership started with the Clinton Administration and was eagerly carried forward by the Bush and Obama Administrations. The nuclear arms race is back. Most Americans imagined it had ended with the Cold War.

Postol is far from alone in his concern about these developments. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has just advanced its famous Doomsday Clock to three minutes to midnight, indicating a level of danger exceeded only in 1953 after the US and Russia exploded their first hydrogen bombs. It notes that “the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads “thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties.”

—————————–
The Committee for the Republic is a citizen-based, non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2003. The Committee sponsors speakers monthly on challenges to the American Republic, including the military-industrial complex, too-big-to-fail banks, campaign finance, and U.S. competitiveness. For questions or requests email James@Committeefortherepublic.org

Committee for the Republic
1320 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Was Nemtsov’s murder fruitless? The “Russian Maidan” turns into a “Rally of the Patriots”

Posted by

0

The newscasters on RT talked about the many thousands (estimated as tens of thousands) who attended this rally. Many people were  carrying Russian flags. This explains why.

From Fort Russ

Photo: RT

March 1, 2015
Sergey Zheleznyak, Deputy Chairman of Russian State Duma
Translated by Kristina Rus

“Thank you to all who participated in the memorial event dedicated to the death of Boris Nemtsov, expressed their grief and and did not allow to use this tragedy to radicalize the protest, which was designed by the masterminds of this shooting.

Murderers and sponsors of the death of Boris Nemtsov, as well as the perpetrators of other crimes should be established by investigation and be held accountable by the court. All theories and evidence should be examined to establish the truth. No crime should go unpunished.

Our common goal is not to allow the death of Boris Nemtsov to implement destructive plans against Russia on the part of those who are behind this murder.”

Kristina Rus:

 Did Putin outsmart the West once again? No matter who came up with the idea, but it was brilliant – those who wanted to pay respects to Nemtsov, but did not want to be used for the body count in the anti-Putin anti-government opposition rally, brought a Russian flag, and collectively turned the “Russian Maidan” into a “Patriotic Rally”.

False flag? More evidence on the Kiev Maidan snipers

Posted by

0

Posted on Global Research from Washington’s Blog

Sniper Attacks As False Flag Terror

Random shootings are a type of false flag terror 

…For example, in 1985 – as part of the “Gladio” (11-21) false flag operations –  snipers attacked and shot shoppers in supermarkets randomly in Brabant county, Belgium killing twenty-eight and leaving many wounded.

Both Sides?

Additionally, shooting both sides is a tip off that it may be a false flag.

Specifically, when authoritarian regimes want to break up protests, they might shoot protesters.

Likewise, when violent protesters shoot government employees, they might be trying to overthrow the government.

But when secretive snipers kill both protesters and the police, it is an indication of a “false flag” attacks meant to sow chaos, anger, disgust and a lack of legitimacy.

This has happened many times over the years. For example:

  • Unknown snipers reportedly killed both Venezuelan government and opposition protesters in the attempted 2002 coup

Snipers Fired At BOTH Police and Protesters In Ukraine

This happened during the Maidan protests which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, as well.  Indeed, the ruthless slaughter of people by snipers was the event which turned world opinion against the then-current Ukrainian Prime Minister, and  resulted in him having to flee the country.

BBC recently interviewed the head of the opposition’s security forces at the time, who confirms that snipers were killing both protesters and police:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uZ-XRSRi_Q

The former Ukrainian government security boss said the same thing.  Specifically, he said:

Former chief of Ukraine’s Security Service has confirmed allegations that snipers who killed dozens of people during the violent unrest in Kiev operated from a building controlled by the opposition on Maidan square.

Shots that killed both civilians and police officers were fired from the Philharmonic Hall building in Ukraine’s capital, former head of the Security Service of Ukraine Aleksandr Yakimenko told Russia 1 channel. The building was under full control of the opposition and particularly the so-called Commandant of Maidan self-defense Andrey Parubiy who after the coup was appointed as the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Yakimenko added.

So both the chief of the government’s security forces and the head of the opposition’s security forces said that the same snipers were killing both protesters and police.  While they disagree about who the snipers were, they both agree that the snipers were attempting to sow chaos.

Similarly:

[Current Ukrainian Health Minister Oleh] Musiy, who spent more than two months organizing medical units on Maidan, said that on Feb. 20 roughly 40 civilians and protesters were brought with fatal bullet wounds to the makeshift hospital set up near the square. But he said medics also treated three police officers whose wounds were identical.

Forensic evidence, in particular the similarity of the bullet wounds, led him and others to conclude that snipers were targeting both sides of the standoff at Maidan — and that the shootings were intended to generate a wave of revulsion so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion.

And the Estonian foreign minister [Urmas Paet] – after visiting Ukraine – told the EU foreign affairs minister [Catherine Ashton] that the Maidan opposition deployed the snipers – and fired on both the protesters and the police – to discredit the former government of Ukraine.

Was It Maidan Who Fired?

While the American media has proclaimed that the sniper fire was definitely from government forces, some of the above-cited sources dispute that claim.

Additionally, BBC reported at the time:

Reporting for Newsnight, Gabriel Gatehouse said he saw what looked like a protester shooting out of a window at the BBC’s Kiev base, the Ukraine Hotel.

And BBC recently interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted that he fired a sniper rifle at police from the Conservatory, and that he was guided by a military veteran within the Maidan resistance. Here are actual pictures a reporter took of Maidan snipers, recently published by BBC:

gunmen at Kiev Conservatory 20 February

(There were reportedly at least 10 Maidan snipers firing from the Conservatory.)

The Frankfurther Allgemein reported last year that Maidan commander Volodymyr Parasjuk controlled the Conservatory at the time:

Volodymyr Parasjuk – the leader in “self-defense units” of the revolution who had called the night of Yanukovich’s escape, on the stage of Maidan to storm the presidential residence one year ago.

On the day of the massacre Parasjuk was staying with his unit in the colonnaded building of the Kiev Conservatory right at the Maidan. In the days before the death toll had risen, and the fighters grew the conviction alone with limited power as before will not be able to overthrow Yanukovych. “There were at that time many guys who said you have to take the weapon and attack,” said Parasjuk recalls. “Many,” he himself had since long ago it had firearms, often their officially registered hunting rifles.

Tagesschau – a German national and international television news service produced by state-run Norddeutscher Rundfunk on behalf of the German public-service television network ARD – also reported in 2014 that at least some of the sniper fire came from protesters.

And there are other photographs of protesters with rifles, such as this one from Reuters:

Independence Square in Kiev February 20, 2014. (Reuters/Maks Levin)

Reuters/Maks Levin

So the snipers might have been Maidan opposition forces shooting their own.

But – whoever the snipers were – the one thing that is clear is that they were shooting people from both sides as part of a “strategy of tension” to create maximum chaos. This hints that it may have been a highly-organized campaign of terror.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-the-kiev-maidan-snipers-they-fired-on-both-sides/5434179