Iraq War was based on lies: top Bush-era CIA official

Global Research, May 27, 2015
The Anti-Media
by Claire Bernish

Twelve years after George W Bush initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq, ostensibly under the premise of preemptive self-defense, a stark majority — as many as 75% in 2014 — feel the so-called war was a mistake. As evidence rapidly accumulates that Bush’s yearning to launch an aggressive attack was likelier due to a personal grudge than anything else, that number will surely swell. This past Tuesday, the former president’s intelligence briefer lent yet more plausibility to that theory in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, making an admission that the Bush White House misrepresented intelligence reports to the public on key issues.

Michael Morell’s stint with the CIA included deputy and acting director, but during the time preceding the US invasion of Iraq, he helped prepare daily intelligence briefings for Bush. One of those briefings, from October 2002, is an infamous example in intelligence history as how not to compile a report. This National Intelligence Estimate, titled “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction”, was the ostensibly flawed intelligence cited continuously by Bush supporters as justification to pursue a war of aggression against Iraq. However, this claim is dubious at best, and serves more as a smokescreen to lend credence to a president who was otherwise hellbent on revenge against Saddam Hussein, as evidenced in his statement a month before the report, “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

In the Hardball interview, host Chris Matthews asked Morell about Cheney’s notorious statement in 2003:

“We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” 

The following is the conversation that ensued:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That’s not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why’d you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You’re the briefer for the president on intelligence, you’re the top person to go in and tell him what’s going on. You see Cheney make this charge he’s got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, “No that’s not what we told him.”

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what’s my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA’s best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they’re saying on TV.

Discussion continued:

MATTHEWS: So you’re briefing the president on the reasons for war, they’re selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn’t. So they’re using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I’m just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I’m just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

And the host pushed just a little further:

MATTHEWS: That’s a big deal! Do you agree? If they claimed they had a [nuclear] weapon, when you know they didn’t.

MORELL: It’s a big deal. It’s a big deal.

He’s absolutely right, of course, and even further to that point, Morell made another admission of a direct misrepresentation: “What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community” had found. “I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war.” Which the administration had to do, considering no such case existed. As a matter of fact, Cheney’s statement directly conflicts with what the NIE actually stated, which is that the intelligence community only found a “[lack of] persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.” Which is in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency report that came to the same conclusion: “[W]e have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program.”

All of this solidifies what former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan resolutely stated about the US invasion of Iraq in 2004: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”

The question most deserving an answer, and increasingly posed by the populace at large: If George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in the administration, deliberately misled the public on false pretenses, directly contradicted intelligence information through misrepresentation, and ultimately initiated a wholly illegal invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of well over 1 million civilian, non-combatants; WHY have they not been charged with war crimes?

This article (Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed the Iraq War Was Based On Lies) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org .

Copyright Claire Bernish, The Anti-Media 2015

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iraq-war-was-based-on-lies-top-bush-era-cia-official/5451817

Why would Bloomberg News completely disappear the February, 2014 Ukraine coup?

Posted on Global Research, May 27. 2015
By Robert Barsocchini
Washington’s Blog

Bloomberg says in a post today that the “confrontation between Russia and the US” over Ukraine was “provok[ed]” by Putin’s annexation of Crimea:

“…Putin annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea last March, provoking the biggest confrontation between Russia and the U.S. and Europe since the Cold War.”

That’s odd, though, because the reintegration of Crimea into Russia (after a vote in favor – but remember democracy is what we say it is) happened, as Bloomberg says and BBC confirms, in March, 2014, about five months after violent, US-backed protests began in November 2013, and ended in the the elected Ukrainian president, Victor Yanukovych, being driven out of the country by, as BBC put it, “radical groups”, including neo-Nazis: see BBC’s “Neo-Nazi Threat in Ukraine“, Feb. 28, 2014.  (“BBC Newsnight’s Gabriel Gatehouse investigates the links between the new Ukrainian government and Neo-nazis.”  Later articles covering the topic were published by, among many others, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Parry, and even, albeit 8 or 9 months too late to make a difference, NBC)

It’s also strange that BBC would say the following (even in a piece rife with the British state-run outlet’s typical pro-Western spin):

Pro-Russian forces [ie the Russian troops already stationed in Crimea by agreement] took control of Crimea in February.  They moved in after Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted after street protests.

So, they reacted to the US-backed overthrow of elected Yanukovych.  To be precise, Russian troops began the process of, in US political-speak, liberating and securing Crimea on “February 23rd, 2014“.

Yet, again oddly, here is Time on February 22nd, 2014:

“Ukraine protesters seize Kiev as President flees”

“Yanukovych fled to the eastern city of Kharkiv where he traditionally has a more solid base of support…”

It is noted in Wikipedia that Yanukovych had “won election in 2010 with strong support in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and southern and eastern Ukraine.”

Here is US historian William Blum, March 7, 2014, on these events:

The Ukrainian insurgents and their Western-power supporters didn’t care who their Ukrainian allies were in carrying out their coup against President Viktor Yanukovych last month … thugs who set policemen on fire head to toe … all manner of extreme right-wingers, including Chechnyan Islamic militants … a deputy of the ultra-right Svoboda Party, part of the new government, who threatens to rebuild Ukraine’s nukes in three to six months. … the snipers firing on the protestors who apparently were not what they appeared to be – A bugged phone conversation between Urmas Paet, the Estonian foreign minister, and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, reveals Paet saying: “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” … neo-Nazi protestors in Kiev who have openly denounced Jews, hoisting a banner honoring Stepan Bandera, the infamous Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.

And who could forget the pictures of Victoria Nuland and John McCain meeting with Ukrainian neo-Nazi and extremist leaders who use terms like “cleanse” and “kike”, or Nuland’s bragging to Chevron that the US had put billions and billions of dollars into these events, highly reminiscent of the US investment in overthrowing Iran’s democracy in 1953 after Iran nationalized its oil.

To the untrained eye, it would certainly seem that, in “liberating” Crimea, Russia was, very understandably, reacting to the above-mentioned series of events (not to mention the encroachment of a hostile, US-led, nuclear military alliance, NATO…).

So why would Bloomberg publish a piece that says the confrontation between Russia and the US was provoked by the annexation of Crimea, when it was provoked by a US-backed overthrow (one of about 60) of an elected president, who had strong ties to the highly ethnic-Russian east (including Crimea)?

We cannot credibly postulate that the Bloomberg author is unaware of the events prior to the “annexation of Crimea”, so we are forced to assume that he has a desire to paint Russia as the aggressor in the West/East standoff, as do so many working for the Western information systems.

This time, he has taken the easy way out by just pretending that nothing happened before Crimea, but other Western outlets have risen to the challenge, with impressive results.

When forced to acknowledge events that show the West as current aggressor in the (now perhaps winding down) West/East conflict, Western outlets have done what they do best: spin crackpot conspiracy theories about how everyone is trying to destroy the “free world” (the US happens to imprison more of its own people than any country in history, but in the free world we are smart enough to know that doesn’t count).

The New York Times, for example, attempted to explain the events that provoked Russia’s actions in Crimea (the US-backed protests and violent overthrow of an elected leader), by claiming Putin orchestrated all of that, too.

Robert Parry reports on the Times’ fanciful effort:

Is the New York Times really suggesting that Putin pulled the strings on the likes of Merkel and Nuland, secretly organized neo-Nazi brigades, and ruthlessly deployed these thugs to Kiev to provoke violence and overthrow Yanukovych, all while pretending to try to save Yanukovych’s government – all so Putin could advance some dastardly plot to conquer Europe?

…the Times’ narrative is something that would make even the most dedicated “conspiracy theorist” blush. Yet, the Times not only asserts this crazy conspiracy theory but calls it “incontrovertible.”

True to form, another times article recently proclaimed:

In all likelihood no one in the Kremlin actually ordered the killing [of Nemtsov]… The Kremlin has recently created a loose army of avengers who believe they are acting in the country’s best interests, without receiving any explicit instructions.

If someone in the US were to insist that Obama or Bush created a “loose army of avengers” who went around killing people “without receiving any explicit instructions”, he or she would be told to take off the tinfoil hat, leave mom’s basement, and get a job.

But when discussing the dark, ruthless, senseless forces of pure evil outside of our huddling “free world”, we are *free* to boldly rewrite history in our favor, concoct wild-eyed conspiracy theories to our hearts’ content, and use our new and improved histories and our nut-job theories to promote mass-violence against the bad people conspiring against “our freedoms”, and then kill millions of them.

Follow author Robert Barsocchini on Twitter @_DirtyTruths

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-would-bloomberg-news-completely-disappear-the-february-2014-ukraine-coup/5452150

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg on NATO’s challenges

At the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
May 27, 2015

Televised on C-SPAN

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326264-1/secretary-general-jens-stoltenberg-future-nato#Video and transcript

More “Kool-Aid” from Stoltenberg. The biggest challenge seems to be telling the truth — but he doesn’t mention that. It’s truly frightening to see the common pool of “official narrative”. On this false foundation, these officials build and promote policy initiatives, and entice other government and military leaders to support them.

People in this video

  • Heather Conley Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies->Europe, Eurasia and the Arctic
  • John J. Hamre President and CEO, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Uncorrected transcript

Unidentified Speaker

AM THE

00:00:19
Unidentified Speaker

RESIDENT. BEFORE WE DO PUBLIC EVENTS WE ALWAYS START AVAILABLE SAFETY. IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TODAY, YOU ARE GOING TO FOLLOW MY DIRECTIONS AND IF I ASK YOU TO GO OUT OF THE EXITS THE STAIRWELL IS RIGHT IN THAT CORNER. WE WILL GO DOWNSTAIRS. IF WE HAD OUT TO THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AND IN THE FRONT WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THAT THE BEAUTIFUL PARK FOR ENTERTAINMENT OR FOOD OR SOMETHING. JUST FOLLOW ME IF WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. IT WILL BE FINE. IT IS A PRIVILEGE TODAY FOR ME TO WELCOME THE SECRETARY GENERAL. I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE HIM FROM A DISTANCE FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS. AS I SAID I AM NOT KIDDING. I’M THE RESIDENT AND I DO HAVE A VERY FOND ATTACHMENT TO MY OWN HOME COUNTRY AND IN THAT CAPACITY, WATCHED THE SECRETARY GENERAL WHEN HE DID A MARVELOUS JOB AS PRIME MINISTER. I DON’T KNOW IF IT STARTED OUT AS A STATISTICIAN. THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS IMPECCABLE, BUT HIS POLICY INTEREST AND SCOPE IS VAST AND IT’S A COMBINATION OF SKILLS THAT WE NEED NOW. WE ARE FACING SOME VERY BIG CHALLENGES IN A WAY AND I THINK ALL OF US HAVE HOPED THE WAR HAD ENDED AND CHANGED THE TRAJECTORY OF HISTORY AND WE ARE NOW BACK TO A SCRATCHY RELATIONSHIP AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT SOMEONE OF THE TALENT AND CALIBER IS LEADING THE WAY FOR ALL OF US DURING THESE RATHER TRYING TIMES. IN OUR CONVERSATION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE CHALLENGES THAT AMERICA FACES TODAY. DO WE HAVE THE FOUNDATION OF STRENGTH THAT WE HAVE IN NATO, AND IT’S ON A FOUNDATION THAT WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY GOING FORWARD. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE WILL COME THE SECRETARY-GENERAL AND HIS EXCELLENCY. [APPLAUSE] >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS GREAT TO BE HERE TO ADDRESS THE AUDIENCE AND TO BE IN THIS

00:02:55
Unidentified Speaker

BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. YOU TOLD ME WHEN WE WERE SITTING IN THE ROOM BEHIND HERE THAT WE ARE FAMILY FAMILIES FROM NORWAY AND THAT’S GREAT. BUT MORE THAN THAT, IT’S THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PLACE IN NORWAY. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING A POWER LINE AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONFLICTS I HAD DURING MY TIME SINCE I BUILT THE POWER LINE. I WILL DARE GO BACK. AND I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU ARE VERY PROUD OF THE ROOTS AND THERE ARE MANY REASONS TO BE PROUD OF THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE ROYAL ORDER THAT IS THE HIGHEST HONOR MY COUNTRY CAN BESTOW ON THE FOREIGN CITIZENS COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT FOR MANY YEARS YOU HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO DEVELOP THE BONDS AND THE CORPORATION BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE TO THE TRANS-ATLANTIC BONDS THAT WE SEE SO RIGHTLY FOR THE SECURITY. I THINK THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THESE ROOTS IN THE ORDER OF MERIT AND THE ENGAGEMENT AT LAST THE SIS ALL OF THAT MAKES YOU A PERFECT POST TO THE NORWEGIAN SECRETARY-GENERAL TO SPEAK ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT. AND WHAT WE ASK THE TRANS-ATLANTIC COMMUNITY TO DO ABOUT THE CHANGING SECURITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ARE FACING SO WE ARE AT THE TIME FOR THE SECURITY IN THE FACE RAISING CHALLENGES. THE FABRIC OF THE SECURITY ORDER IS THE STATE. AND WE MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE LONG HAUL. THAT’S WHY WE NEED TO ADAPT. THE CHALLENGES ARE COMPLEX AND DIVERSE. THE ARAB SPRING HAS TURNED UP TO BRUTAL WINTER. THE OLD AND WEAK STATES ARE FUELING REGIONAL STABILITY. AND SECTARIAN STRIFE. THE OTHER EXTREMIST GROUPS SPREAD TERROR AND INTOLERANCE, AND INSPIRE ATTACKS FROM PARIS TO TEXAS AND PEOPLE MOVING LARGE NUMBERS MANY TO FLEE AND OTHERS TO FIGHT. NATO IS PLAYING ITS PART IN ADDRESSING THESE CHALLENGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA AND I’M READY TO SET OUT WHAT WE ARE DOING IN GREAT DETAIL. BUT LET ME IN MY OPENING REMARKS NOT ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES AND RECEIPT OF THE SOUTH WOULD FOCUS ON THE CHALLENGES THAT WE ARE FACING COMING FROM THE EAST AND I PROMISE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS AFTERWARDS. THEY ARE COMING FROM BUT RESEARCH IN RUSSIA. IT’S CONTINUE TO BE ESTABLISHED UKRAINE AND ITS PROSPECTS TO GEAR UP. THIS CONFLICT HAS ALREADY COST OVER 6,000 LIVES. THE FIGHTING COULD FIGHTING COULD PLAY HER AT ANY MOMENT. THAT IS WHY I FULLY SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS GERMANY AND FRANCE TO FIND A POLITICAL SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE. THE PATH TO PEACE IS THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEANS OF — MINSK AGREEMENT. RUSSIA HAS A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY. IT SUPPORTS THE SEPARATISTS IN EASTERN UKRAINE WITH TRAINING, WEAPONS AND FORCES IT MAINTAINS A LARGE LEVEL ON UKRAINE BORDERS BUT WE CANNOT LOOK AT THE AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS. THEY ARE PART OF A DISTURBING PATTERN THAT GOES WELL BEYOND UKRAINE. AND THIS UNDERMINES THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN SECURITY. RESPECT FOR BORDERS, THE INDEPENDENCE OF STATES, TRANSPARENCY, PROJECTED A BUDDY OF MILITARY ACTIVITIES, AND THE COMMITMENT TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES TO THE DIPLOMACY, NOT FORCE. LET’S LOOK AT RESPECT FOR BORDERS. THE UN CHARTER AND THE ACT ARE CLEAR. RUSSIA HELPED TO DRAFT THESE DOCUMENTS AND ASSIGNED THEM BUT IT HAS BROKEN ITS COMMITMENT. CRANIA HAS BEEN PART OF UKRAINE SINCE THE COUNTRY BECAME INDEPENDENT, BUT RUSSIA SEND IN TROOPS AND ORGANIZED THE SO-CALLED REFERENDUM THAT HAD NO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD AND CEASED PART OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. PRESIDENT PUTIN EVEN ADMITTED PUBLICLY THAT THE ANNEXATION HAD BEEN PLANNED IN ADVANCE. AFTER 2008, RUSSIA RECOGNIZED THE REGIONS AS INDEPENDENT STATES AND IT’S TAKEN ALMOST FULL CONTROL OVER BOTH BETWEEN THEM AND THE REST OF GEORGIA AND ALSO SENT TROOPS THAT THEY WANT OUT AND WHICH RUSSIA PLEDGED TO WITHDRAW IN 1999. SO THEY’VE BEEN VIOLATING THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORS FOR YEARS AND CONTINUE TO DO SO. THAT BRINGS ME TO THE SECOND PRINCIPLE, THE INDEPENDENCE OF STATES. UKRAINE’S P5 DESIRE TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE EUROPEAN UNION WAS MET BY FORCE. SO WAS GEORGIA’S ASPIRATION TO JOIN NATO. MOLDOVA HAS RECEIVED CLEAR WARNINGS ABOUT THE MOVE TOWARD EUROPE. THEY CLAIM THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTS THE PRIVILEGED INTEREST BUT IT’S TO CREATE THE INFERENCE AND TAKE US BACK IN TIME. SO WHEN THE GREAT POWERS DREW THE LINES ON THE MAP AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SMALLER STATES, THE NATIONS WERE NOT FREE TO DECIDE THEIR OWN DESTINY THIS COULD CREATE A SEVERE INSTABILITY AND IT’S NOT THE SORT OF EUROPE THAT WE WANT. WE WILL ACCEPT AT THE END OF THE COLD WAR. THE THIRD IS TRANSPARENCY AND PREDICTABILITY IN THE MILITARY ACTIVITIES. WE BUILT A STABLE SYSTEM BASED ON FEWER FORCES, FEWER WEAPONS AND LARGE EXERCISES AND MORE INFORMATION SHARING. AN ARMY ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS TO BUILD TRUST AND CONFIDENCE ACROSS THE FORMER DIVIDING LINES THESE REDUCE THE RISK CALCULATIONS AND THE CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE PUT LIMITS ON THE NUMBERS OF MOVEMENTS OF EQUIPMENT LIKE TANKS AND FIGHTER TANKS BUT RUSSIA UNILATERALLY SUSPENDED THE IMPLEMENTATION. THE OPEN SKIES TREATY ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT THE TERRITORY TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY. BUT RUSSIA IS OBSTRUCTING THESE ACTIVITIES. BEYOND THE DOCUMENT THAT SETS UP THE RULES FOR REPORTING THE EXERCISES AND ALLOWS FOR INSPECTION. THEY HAVE FOUND WAYS AROUND IT TO AVOID THE LARGEST MILITARY EXERCISES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA. THREE OF THESE EXERCISES HAVE INCLUDED OVER 80,000 TROOPS. MOVING GREAT DISTANCES AND AT GREAT SPEEDS. IN FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR IT WAS USED TO DEPLOY FORCES TO ANNEX CRIMEA. IT LED TO THE BUILDUP OF FORCES ON THE BORDER. RUSSIA IS CONDUCT IN ANOTHER STAFF EXERCISE WITH 250 ACROSS AND 700 PIECES OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. NATO ON THE OTHER HAND STRIVES TO CREATE TRANSPARENCY AND PREDICTABILITY. OUR LARGEST EXERCISE IN 20 YEARS WILL TAKE PLACE NEXT FAULT IN ITALY. IT WAS ANNOUNCED A YEAR AGO IT WAS NOT A SNAP EXERCISE. NATIONAL OBSERVERS INCLUDING RUSSIA WILL HAVE ACCESS TO OUR EXERCISE AND YOU CAN FIND THE SCHEDULE OR THE PLANNED EXERCISES ON THEIR WEBSITE BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. THEY ARE GIVING ALL THEY CAN TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPARENCY OF WHAT ITS FORCES ARE DOING. AND THIS BRINGS ME TO MY FINAL PRINCIPLE. RESOLVING THE DIFFERENCES TO THE DIALOGUE, NOT FORCES. AT THE PATTERN THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED IN UKRAINE AND GEORGIA AND MOLDOVA, RUSSIA HAS THE ABILITY TO USE FORCE OR TO COERCE ITS NEIGHBORS. AND THE RECENT USE OF NUCLEAR RHETORIC EXERCISES THE OPERATIONS THAT ARE DEEPLY TROUBLING. AS OUR CONCERNS REGARDING ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY. PRESIDENT PUTIN’S EMISSION BUT HE CONSIDERED PUTTING RUSSIA AS THE FIVE NUCLEAR FORCES ON ALERT IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE. RUSSIA HAS ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE SCALE, THE NUMBER AND THE RANGE OF PRODUCTIVE FLIGHTS BY THE NUCLEAR BOMBERS ACROSS MUCH OF THE GLOBE. FROM JAPAN, TO CALIFORNIA, AND FROM THE BALTIC SEA. RUSSIAN OFFICIALS ANNOUNCED PLANS ON THE SYSTEMS AND THEY CLAIM THAT RUSSIA HAS THE RIGHT TO DEPLOY THE NUCLEAR FORCES TO CRIMEA. THIS WILL CHANGE THE BALANCE OF SECURITY IN EUROPE. WE LEARNED DURING THE COLD WAR THAT WHEN IT COMES TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAN’T CAUTION, PREDICTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ARE VITAL. IT IS UNJUSTIFIED, DESTABILIZING AND DANGEROUS. ALL OF THIS TAKES PLACE AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE SIGNIFICANT ARMAMENT PROGRAM. SOME OF ITS NEW MILITARY SYSTEMS WORKED ON THE PARADE DURING THE VICTORY DAY CELEBRATION. AND RUSSIA IS DEPLOYING ITS MOST MODERN SYSTEMS AND BASING THE MILITARY UNITS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE ARE NOT RANDOM EVENTS. THEY FORM A BIGGER PICTURE WHICH IS OF GREAT CONCERN. RUSSIA IS A GLOBAL ACTOR THAT IS ASSERTING ITS MILITARY POWER, STARING AT AGGRESSIVE NATIONALISM, CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE ITS WILL ON ITS NEIGHBORS AND GRABBING LAND. WE REGRET THAT RUSSIA IS TAKING THIS COURSE BECAUSE WHEN RIGHT BECOMES RIGHT, THE CONSEQUENCES ARE GRAVE. FOR 25 YEARS, WE WORKED HARD TO INCLUDE, NOT ISOLATE RUSSIA. OUR AIM WAS A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP. THE BORDERS WERE OPEN, TRADE WENT OUT AND TRUST INCREASED. THE G7 EXPANDED TO BECOME THE G-8 AND RUSSIA WAS INVITED INTO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. WE CREATED THE NATO RUSSIA COUNCIL AND OFFERED TO WORK TOGETHER ON MISSILE DEFENSE. WE COOPERATED FROM COUNTING PIRACY AND TERRORISM TO HELPING AFGHANISTAN. ALL OF THIS BENEFITED US AND IT BENEFITED RUSSIA. BUT TODAY THE CHOICES MADE BY MOSCOW HAVE TAKEN UP RELATIONS TO THEIR LOWEST POINT IN DECADES WE ARE NOT BACK TO THE COLD WAR BUT WE ARE FAR FROM THAT STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP. SO WE NEED TO ADAPT TO DEAL WITH THE CHALLENGES THAT MAY BE WITH US FOR A LONG TIME. THIS ADAPTATION WE ARE DOING IT IN THREE WAYS. REINFORCING OUR COLLECTIVE DEFENSE, REINFORCING OUR DETERRENCE, MANAGING RELATIONS WITH THE RESURGENT RUSSIA AND SUPPORTING OUR EUROPEAN NEIGHBORS. FIRST, STRONG DEFENSE. THE TASK IS COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. OUR COMMITMENT TO DEFEND EACH OTHER AND THE WASHINGTON TREATY IS AS STRONG AND RELEVANT TODAY AS EVER BEFORE. THAT’S WHY WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THE BIGGEST COLLECTIVE DEFENSE SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR. IT’S IN THE EASTERN PART OF EUROPE ON LAND AND WATER AND SEE BEEFING UP THE EXERCISE PROGRAMS WE ARE DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE NATO RESPONSE FORCE. IT’S READY TO MOVE. OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES HAVE GUARANTEED TO BE THAT THIS COULD FORCE OVER THE COMING YEARS. AND WE ARE ESTABLISHING NEW UNITS ACROSS THE EASTERN PART OF OUR LIVES. TO FORCE THEM TO EXERCISE AND REINFORCE YESTERDAY I THINK PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR HIS LEADERSHIP. AND THE OPERATION ATLANTIC RESULT. ACROSS THE LINES THE PRESIDENT SENDS A CLEAR SIGNAL AMERICA STANDS WITH EUROPE AND EUROPEAN ALLIES ARE IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS THE TRANS-ATLANTIC TEAMWORK. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DO BEFORE. WE ARE ENHANCING OUR CYBER DEFENSES AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE CYBER ATTACK COULD TRIGGER A COLLECTIVE RESPONSE WE ARE WORKING WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION. WE ARE CAREFULLY ASSESSING WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING WITH ITS NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES. KEEPING NATO STRONG DOESN’T WORK FOR FREE SO WE MUST REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO MEET THE DEFENSE INVESTMENT PLEDGE THAT WE MADE LAST YEAR TO STOP THE CUTS AND GRADUALLY INCREASE THE SPENDING TO 2% OF GDP AND SPEND BETTER. THIS BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT. A STRONG NEED TO KNOW ISN’T ONLY THE BEST BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES US WITH THE BEST FOUNDATION TO MANAGE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA. WE DO NOT SEEK CONSULTATION WITH RUSSIA NOR DO WE SEEK ITS ISOLATION. WE STILL ASPIRE TO A CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA BECAUSE THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE ATLANTIC SECURITY AND THE WHOLE INTERNATIONAL BORDER. BUT RUSSIA HAS CHANGED AND WE MUST ADAPT. IN DOING SO, WE WILL CHANGE BR. WE ARE STICKING TO OUR PRINCIPLES AND TO OUR INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO PRESERVING EUROPEAN SECURITY INSTITUTIONS AND AGREEMENTS. WE WILL REMAIN TRANSPIRED AND PREDICTABLE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO THIS INFORMATION WITH INFORMATION, NOT PROPAGANDA , AND WE WILL KEEP THE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION OPEN WITH RUSSIA. BOTH MILITARY TO MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN STRENGTHENING THE COLLECTIVE DEFENSE AND STAYING OPEN FOR DIALOGUE. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. IN THIS DIALOGUE WE WILL UPHOLD THE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE INTEGRITY OF ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. THIS BRINGS ME TO MY THIRD AND FINAL POINT SUPPORTING OUR PARTNERS IN EUROPE. IT IS IN OUR INTEREST AS A TRANS-ATLANTIC COMMUNITY TO HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE STABLE AND INDEPENDENT. THAT’S WHY NATO IS WORKING WITH GEORGIA, MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE TO HELP THEM CARRY OUT REFORMS AND BUILD STRONG INSTITUTIONS. OF THESE NATIONS ARE NOT THE FIRST OWNS. THEY ARE IN THE SOVEREIGN STATES AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO HELP THEM ON THE PATH. BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE MORE STABLE, WE ARE MORE SECURE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FOR DECADES AS A TRANS-ATLANTIC COMMUNITY WE’VE KEPT OUR PEOPLE SAFE. WE HAVE ERASED THE VISIONS IN EUROPE, WE’VE BUILT A LOOSE BASED ORDER THAT THE BENEFITS US ALL. BUT AS EVER CHALLENGES INCREASE, WE MUST ADAPT. TO PROTECT THE VALUES OF OUR OPEN SOCIETIES AND TO SUPPORT OUR PARTNERS THIS REQUIRED COMMITMENT AND SOLIDARITY THE WORLD IS CHANGING AND WE ARE CHANGING. BUT ONE THING THAT WILL NOT CHANGE IS OUR DETERMINATION TO STAY AND STAND UNITED. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS A CLEAR AND CONCISE MESSAGE THAT

00:27:15
Unidentified Speaker

IS URGENTLY NEEDED. WE ARE DELIGHTED THAT YOU COULD JOIN US. I AM THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT HERE AT THE CENTER AND WHAT A PRIVILEGE IT IS TO HAVE YOUR FIRST PUBLIC ADDRESS AS THE SECRETARY GENERAL IN WASHINGTON. WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD DO FOR THE NEXT 30 MINUTES OR SO IS TAKE YOU UP ON YOUR OFFER TO ASK QUESTIONS AND MOVE TO THE CHALLENGES THAT WE SEE TO THE SOUTH BUT I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS AND I THINK THE MOST CHALLENGING PART OF MY JOB IS TO LIMIT MY QUESTIONS. THERE IS SO MUCH WE CAN COVER. AFTER WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES HERE THEN WE WELCOME OUR AUDIENCE AND I KNOW THEY ASK VERY TOUGH QUESTIONS SO WE WILL ENGAGE IN THE CONVERSATION. SECRETARY, YOU’VE BEEN IN THE JOB FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LONGER STARTING AFTER THE SUMMIT IN NEWPORT. AND YOU OFFERED A VERY FRANK ASSESSMENT OF THE MILITARY EXERCISE. BUT HOW HAVE THEY BEEN EXERCISING HAVEN’T DONE THIS TYPE OF DEFENSE IN QUITE A LONG TIME. WHAT ARE THE REFLECTIONS THAT YOU ARE SEEING. >> THAT GOES FOR THE ALLIES AND OF COURSE RUSSIA. SO MY POINT IS NOT TO ARGUE AGAINST EXERCISES. IF THE FORCES ARE TO EXERCISE THEM,

00:29:01
Unidentified Speaker

THE CHALLENGE. IT IS UNDERMINING THE TRANSPARENCY AND AS IT IS STATED IN MY SPEECH REVIEWS THESE EXERCISES AS A DISGUISE FOR ANNEXING CRIMEA AND TO MASK THE TROOPS ON THE BORDERS OF UKRAINE AND ALSO TO SEND TROOPS INTO EASTERN UKRAINE TO SUPPORT THE SEPARATISTS SO THEY ARE USING THESE EXERCISES AS A WAY TO DISGUISE THE OPTIONS, AND BY DOING SO WITHOUT ANY WARNING THERE ARE DECREASING PREDICTABILITY IS AN INCREASING UNCERTAINTY, AND THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE INTENTIONS DESCRIBED WHICH ARE AIMING SO THERE ARE WORRIED MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND THAT’S THE REASON WHY WE ARE FROM THE NATO SIDE TRANSPARENT, PREDICTABLE. SO YOU CAN GO ON THE WEBSITE JUST TO MEET SURE THAT THEY ARE TRANSPARENT ENOUGH. THAT IS PART OF THE RESPONSE TO GET THE ACTIONS OF RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND WE WILL DO EVEN MORE EXERCISES BUT WE VOTED IN A TRANSPARENT AND A PREDICTABLE WAY. >> IS IT BEST TO RETURN RUSSIA TO THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY FIND OR DO WE NEED SOMETHING NEW? SOME

00:31:12
Unidentified Speaker

SUGGEST WE NEED A CODE OF CONDUCT TO GET TO THE NOTIFICATION TO THE AIRCRAFT THAT HAVE TURNED OFF TRANSPONDERS AS THEY ARE FLYING INTO CROWDED CIVILIAN AIRSPACE. HOW DO WE MEET ITS IMMEDIATE CHALLENGE? DO WE NEED A CODE OF CONDUCT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE? >> IT WAS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD THING TO

00:31:51
Unidentified Speaker

DO TO EXERCISE THE MILITARY ACTIVITY. THEN OF COURSE, WE ARE ALWAYS WORKING ON HOW WE CAN DEVELOP THESE KIND OF AGREEMENTS IN THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT NATO AGREEMENT. BUT OF COURSE THE ALLIES ARE TAKING PART IN THE AGREEMENTS IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND WE HAVE A SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE RISK OF AIR ACTIVITY. THEY’VE INCREASED THE ACTIVITY BY AROUND 50% BY INTERCEPTING A FEW YEARS AGO. THEY PROVIDED A REPORT OF THE MILITARY ACTIVITY AND ALSO WITHOUT THE TRANSPONDERS. AND NATO WAS COMMENDED FOR THE WAY THAT WE ARE CONDUCTING WITHOUT TRANSPONDERS TO THE CIVILIAN AIR TRAFFIC. SO TO TURN ON TRANSPONDERS. YOU HAVE PAINTED A STARK PICTURE OF THE AGGRESSIVE POSTURE OF THE NUCLEAR ISSUE. AT LAST SEPTEMBER’S NEWPORT SUMMIT THERE WERE ACTIONS THAT YOU MENTIONED THE HIGH READINESS TASK FORCE AND A VARIETY OF OTHER ISSUES. AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR’S SUMMIT IN JULY, YOU MENTIONED THIS FOR THE LONG HAUL. DO YOU SEE THAT AS ONE OF THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED AT NEWPORT OR DO YOU SEE IT MOVING INTO THE LONG HAUL, THE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC POSTURE? WE HOSTED THIS LAST WEEK AND ARGUED FOR THE INITIATIVE FOR THE STRATEGIC ADAPTATION AND LONG-TERM PERMANENT PRESENCE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AS YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT ADVANCE? TO MAKE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CHANGED SECURITY ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO ADAPT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND IT HAS TO BE BIG AND FUNDAMENTAL AND THEREFORE I VERY MUCH BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO IS CHARGE THE WAY FORWARD IN THIS ADAPTATION OF NATO. THAT IS PARTLY ABOUT INCREASING THE COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. THEY HAVE TO DO MORE BUT ALSO OF COURSE ADDRESSING THE ELEMENTS FOR INSTANCE CYBER INTELLIGENCE AND MANY OTHER WHERE WE HAVE TO DO MORE AND DEVELOP THE NEW CAPABILITIES AND ADAPT. THEN I WILL ADD THAT IN ADDITION TO OUTLINING THE NEXT PHASE. IT IS WHERE WE TAKE STOCK BECAUSE IMPLEMENTATION IS ALSO IMPORTANT. MANY MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT AS GOOD AS THEY SHOULD BE SO ITS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE IMPLEMENTING A READINESS ACTION PLAN IN FORCES AND NOT LEAST OF WHICH COMES TO DEFENSE INVESTMENTS AND STARTING TO INCREASE. >> A FOLLOW-UP ON THE STABILITY I THINK HE MENTIONED THERE IS A BIT OF A TIME GAP AS RUSSIA PUTS FORWARD

00:36:53
Unidentified Speaker

THE STATE BORDERS. THEY HAVE A 48 HOUR DEPLOYMENT AND IT COULD BE SOMETHING OF A FASTER SPEED POTENTIAL USING HYBRID TACTICS. ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT TIMING AND HOW FAST THEY CAN DEPLOY THE SCENARIO? >> THAT’S THE REASON WE HAVE INCREASED THE

00:37:26
Unidentified Speaker

PREPAREDNESS. WE HAVE THE TROOPS BASED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY WILL BE THERE AND THIS IS THE COMBINATION OF THE ABILITY TO REINFORCE AND I WELCOME THE BORDER COUNTRIES ARE NOW INCREASING THEIR OWN INVESTMENTS IN THE FANS. WE WILL ESTABLISH A PRESENCE IN THE WAY THAT WE ESTABLISHED A COMMAND UNITS AND THAT IS SOMETHING NEW AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT IN THE NATO PRESENCE IT WILL ALSO MAKE REINFORCEMENT EASIER. SO NATIONAL PRESENCE AND INCREASED PREPAREDNESS BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT WE HAVE THE ASSURANCE MEASURES WITH MORE TROOPS ON THE GROUND, SO IT’S THE WHOLE COMBINATION THAT PROVIDES WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR ME. >> ONE LAST QUESTION BEFORE I TURN TO THE AUDIENCE AND OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS. ANOTHER ASPECT OF MANAGING RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA IS ABOUT THE AGENDA AND I CAN’T

00:39:25
Unidentified Speaker

LET YOU GO UNLESS I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT 2012 SECRETARY CLINTON ARGUED AFTER THE CHICAGO NATO SUMMIT THAT THIS WOULD BE THE SUMMIT THAT WOULDN’T OF THAT WOULDN’T BE DISCUSSED AND WE HAD ANOTHER SUMMIT THAT WASN’T TACKLED AS WE HEADED TOWARDS WARSAW. OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST FOR GEORGIA AND UKRAINE IN THE ALLIANCE, BUT TODAY’S COALITION PLATFORM SUGGESTED THEY ARE KEEPING OPTIONS OPEN. IS THERE A PATH FORWARD? >> IT HAS BEEN HISTORICAL SUCCESS AND OF COURSE A COMBINATION HAS REALLY

00:40:22
Unidentified Speaker

TRANSFORMED. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERLINE THAT PRINCIPLE OF EVERY NATION TO DECIDE ITS OWN PATH INCLUDING ARRANGEMENT IT WANTS TO BE PART OF. IT’S SOMETHING THAT RUSSIA HAS ALSO ASSIGNED TO. AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS WHETHER ANOTHER COUNTRY WILL BECOME A MEMBER IS GOING TO BE DECIDED BY THAT COUNTRY AND THE ALLIES. NO ONE ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY OR TO CHOOSE THE PATH IT WANTS. WE’VE DECIDED THAT WE WILL MAKE THE DECISIONS ON MONTENEGRO BY THE END OF THIS YEAR SO THIS WILL BE AFTER THE MEETING IN NATO. I AM RELUCTANT IF I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT IT WILL CONTRIBUTE IN A POSITIVE WAY SO THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY APPLY. >> OKAY. WE ARE READY TO UNLEASH THE AUDIENCE. WE HAVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES. CAN WE BUNDLE A FEW QUESTIONS

00:42:22
Unidentified Speaker

IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND AFFILIATION WE HAVE MICROPHONES PASSING AROUND YOU TO SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO SPEAK VERY DIRECTLY. WHY DON’T WE START IN THE BACK. I SEE QUESTIONS IN THE BACK JUST WAIT FOR THE MICROPHONE PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. I’M A FELLOW AT THE ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY. I HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING YOU A FEW

00:42:55
Unidentified Speaker

YEARS AGO AND THE YOUNG ACTIVISTS IN GEORGIA NOW MY QUESTION ON THE FELLOWSHIP I WAS BENIGHTED AND I HOPE THAT YOU COULD HELP ME FIND AN ANSWER WHEN THEY RESHAPED THE SOVIET UNION HAD HELPED THE ORGANIZATION MAINTAIN ITS STRENGTH. MY QUESTION IS REGARDING GEORGIA. WOULD YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD MAKE ANOTHER STEP TOWARDS THE MEMBERSHIP PLAN OR IF NOT, WHAT WE JUST SAY THAT IT WOULD BE FOR GEORGIA LIKE WITH GEORGIA BENEFIT FROM THE LONG-TERM PARTNERSHIP VERSUS MEMBERSHIP? >> THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO ASK FOR

00:43:58
Unidentified Speaker

INTERNSHIPS. >> THANK YOU SECRETARY GENERAL. I WANT TO SEE IF I CAN PUSH YOU A LITTLE BIT. WE HAD A BIT OF DEVELOPMENTS TAKING

00:44:09
Unidentified Speaker

PLACE IN THE PARTNERSHIP. HOW DO YOU SEE THIS GOING FORWARD AS A PARTNERSHIP AND IN TERMS OF THE MEMBERSHIP ABOUT KEEPING THE OPTIONS OPEN IT TO SEE IF I CAN GET YOUR TAKE ON HOW USEFUL IT WOULD BE AND WHAT THAT REALLY HELP THEM TO REASSURE THEM AND WOULD IT EVEN BE PRODUCTIVE FOR RUSSIA. >> WE WILL TAKE ONE MORE RIGHT

00:44:47
Unidentified Speaker

HERE. >> ITALY IS VERY PROUD OF BEING THE PROVIDING POLICE TO THE STATES AS WE SPEAK. WE ARE ONE OF THOSE NATIONS THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE

00:45:01
Unidentified Speaker

LEADING NATIONS CONTRADICTING TO THE CYBER CENTER AND AT THE SAME TIME I WOULD BE INTERESTED ON WHAT THE ROLE COULD BE IN THOSE CHALLENGES. THANK YOU. >> SO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE SOUTH. >> THE

00:45:37
Unidentified Speaker

SECRETARY-GENERAL OF NATO THAT IS A GOOD LOOK

00:45:58
Unidentified Speaker

AND THEY HAVE A CLOSE PARTNERSHIP WITH GEORGIA. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING THE SUBSTANTIAL PACKAGE WHICH IS EXPANDING FURTHER INTO PARTNERSHIP WITH GEORGIA. WE ARE ESTABLISHING THE TRAINING CENTERS AND WE ARE REALLY DOING SUBSTANTIAL ACTIVITIES. AND IN THE DEFENSE CAPACITY BUILDING IN GEORGIA WHICH INCREASES THE ABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF I THINK THAT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE REGION. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MEMBERSHIP THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SAY THAN WHAT HAS BEEN STATED AGAIN AND AGAIN. I WAS AT THE SUMMIT IN 2008 WHERE WE MADE THE DECISIONS. THEY ARE RESTATED BUT WHAT WE DECIDED WAS THE FIRST APPLICANT AS THEY WERE GOING TO ADDRESS LATER THIS YEAR. THEN ON SWEDEN I APPRECIATE WHAT WE HAVE WITH GEORGIA AND THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO A LOT OF THE CORPORATIONS SO WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT PARTNERSHIP THAT WE HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN AND DEVELOP. THEN YOU SAID YOU WOULD TRY TO PUSH IT FURTHER BUT WOULDN’T SUCCEED. IT’S EASY TO JOKE ABOUT THIS ABOUT A THINK IT’S SO IMPORTANT THAT EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT THE ADVANTAGE OF THE SOCIETY ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND FOR THE MISUSE IF I WAS A JOURNALIST OR A SCIENTIST OR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE I’M THE SECRETARY GENERAL AND THEN THAT’S THE REASON THAT WE JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT AND THE DEMOCRATIC POSITION IN THE COUNTRIES TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO APPLY IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER APPLICATION THAT LETS ME ADD ANOTHER. WE HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH SWEDEN AND FINLAND AND THERE ARE ENHANCED OPPORTUNITIES AND WE ARE DOING MORE AND MORE TOGETHER WITH THEM AND WE ARE SHARING INFORMATION AND WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER WITH THEM AND WE DECIDED TO GO FURTHER IN DEVELOPING OUR PARTNERSHIP SO THEY ARE REALLY CLOSE PARTNERS. TO THE EAST WE SEE THE CHALLENGES IN THE STATE AND WE RESPOND IN A WAY THAT IS FAMILIAR TO WHAT WE’VE DONE BEFORE AND IN THE SOUTH WE ARE FACED WITH NON- STATE CHALLENGES AND THAT IS A MIXED AND COMPLICATED PICTURE WITH VIOLENCE AND TURMOIL. WE ALSO SEE THE ATTACKS TAKING PLACE IN SOME OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. I WOULD WELCOME THAT ALL ALLIES CONTRIBUTE TO THE COALITION AND I THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE REASONS THE PARTNERS CAN CONTRIBUTE IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE DEVELOPED INTEROPERABILITY. THEY’VE LEARNED HOW TO WORK TOGETHER IN AFGHANISTAN SO EVEN THOUGH THIS ISN’T A NATO OPERATION IT IS VERY USEFUL. THEN IN ADDITION, THEY DECIDED TO DEVELOP THE CAPACITY TO BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE IDEA TO PROJECT TO THE STABILITY AND BY BUILDING THE LOCAL FORCES THEY CAN TAKE MORE OF THIS POSSIBILITY FOR THE SECURITY AND THEREBY WE CAN PROTECT THE LARGE NUMBER OF THE FORCES AND WE ARE DOING THAT IN JORDAN. WE HAVE REDUCED AND WE ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF HELPING THEM BUILD INSTITUTION REFORMS AND INCREASED THEIR ABILITY. WE STAND READY TO DO THAT IN LIBYA WHEN THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND ALLOWS. AND EVEN IF WE DON’T CALL IT THE CAPACITY BUILDING. THEY TAKE THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE FOR THEIR OWN SECURITY. AND I THINK THAT TO DEVELOP AND TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SECURITY IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNTRIES BUT ALSO NATO AND WE HAVE TO DO MORE OF THAT. >> WE WILL TAKE A VITAMIN AROUND ON THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS. WE HAVE ONE IN THE BACK RIGHT

00:53:06
Unidentified Speaker

THERE. >> THANK YOU. VOICE OF AMERICA. I WOULD LIKE TO

00:53:15
Unidentified Speaker

ASK THE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES HEAR MORE VOICES NOW IN THE MEDIA AND ON THE INTERNET THAT UKRAINE AND THE STANDOFF WITH RUSSIA IS MOSTLY A EUROPEAN PROBLEM AND WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE PUTTING MOST EFFORT INTO RESOLVING THE CRISIS AND IT SHOULD BE GERMANY OR FRANCE LEADING THE WAY? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SHOULD WE TAKE ONE MORE IN THE BACK IN THE CORNER

00:53:54
Unidentified Speaker

PLEASE? >> GOOD MORNING. I AM A BRITISH EXCHANGE IN DC. IT WAS A FASCINATING EXERCISE HERE LAST YEAR WHICH

00:54:07
Unidentified Speaker

CONSIDERED THE SCENARIO ON ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS IN THE AUDIENCE AND THERE WAS ALMOST NO AGREEMENT ON WHAT CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF ARTICLE FIVE. I WONDER IF YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHALLENGE OF DEFINING THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH IT IS BREACHED PARTICULARLY AND THEN IN A NAME LIKE CYBER AND ALSO MAYBE SPEAKS LIKELY TO DEALING WITH AN ADVERSARY THAT THE DETERMINEDLY STAYS BELOW THAT THRESHOLD. >> FANTASTIC QUESTION. I THINK WITH TIME AND GOING TO HAVE YOU RESPONDED TO THIS QUESTION. >> UKRAINE

00:54:43
Unidentified Speaker

IS IN EUROPE IS A PROBLEM OR A CRISIS WHICH AFFECTS NOT ONLY THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES BUT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A VIOLATED AND

00:54:54
Unidentified Speaker

UNDERMINES THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE ORDER THAT IS BASED ON THE RULES. SO OF COURSE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE GLOBAL ORDER AND WHEN THE BALL IS VIOLATED IN THE WAY THAT WE HAVE SEEN UKRAINE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ANNEXATION OF THE ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA. EUROPEANS ARE IN THE LEAD WHEN IT COMES TO TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS BECAUSE FRANCE AND GERMANY IN PARTICULAR ARE REALLY IN THE LEAD. .. THERE’S ALSO GLOBAL CHALLENGE AND THE CHALLENGE WHICH TRANS-ATLANTIC ALLIANCE IS ADDRESSING. THEN WHEN IT COMES TO ARTICLE V, THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT NATO STANDS READY TO PROTECT AND DEFEND ALL ALLIES AGAINST ANYTHING. AND WHEN IT COMES TO FOR INSTANCE, FIBER, THINK IMPORTANT THING WITH IT, WAS TO DECIDE THE CYBERATTACK CAN — BECAUSE WE’VE GOT CYBER AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AS A CONVENTIONAL ATTACK. AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE DEVELOPING OUR CAPABILITIES TO RESPOND PARTLY TO DETECT WHO IS BEHIND. OUR MAIN RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DEFEND OUR OWN NATO NETWORKS. WE ARE DEVELOPING TEAMS, CAPABILITIES, DOING MORE EXERCISES WITH CYBER DEFENSE EXERCISE. SO WE ARE INCREASING OUR READINESS TO CYBER DEFENSE. BUT THERE ARE ALSO ASSISTING IN HELPING ALLIES IN DEVELOPING THEIR OWN CAPABILITIES TO DO CYBER DEFENSE. AND AS ALWAYS, EVERY SITUATION, EVERY ATTACK IS UNIQUE BUT I THINK WHAT TRUST EVER LIKE THAT NATO WILL RESPOND AND THE PROPORTIONATE WAY COME IF AND WHEN NEEDED, WHATEVER KIND OF ATTACK WHICH ARE LAUNCHED AGAINST US. >> THE ONE THING WE LEARNED WAS POLITICAL LEADERS NEED TO EXERCISE HOW TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS WHEN THEY ARE FELLOW THRESHOLD LEVELS. IT HAS TO BE PRACTICED

00:57:58
Unidentified Speaker

AND UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE ATTRIBUTION WILL NEVER BE PERFECT AND WHEN POLITICAL WILL IS PERHAPS NOT THERE, IT’S REALLY LEADERS SITTING AROUND THE TABLE EXPLORING WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN, WHAT WOULD WE NEED, WHAT IS THE INTELLIGENCE REQUIRED? THAT’S ONE AREA RECEIVED CRITICAL LEADERSHIP COULD GAIN SOME VALUE AND PRACTICING AT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WORKS. >> FIRST OF ALL I BELIEVE IN EXERCISES. SECOND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT EXERCISING POLITICAL LEADERS. THIRD WE NEED UTAH’S POLITICAL LEADERS BECAUSE WE HAVE ELECTED THEM,

00:58:31
Unidentified Speaker

AND RELATED TO THAT I THINK IS WE HAVE IN EVERY NATO SET UP IN X. HAPPENS, WHY WE RESPOND TO AT SOME STAGE AFTER PREPARED FOR STRATEGIES, YOUR PLAN, EXERCISE, IMAGINE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BUT AT THE END IT WILL BE A DECISION TAKEN BY POLITICAL LEADERS HOW TO RESPOND. THEREFORE, WE NEED THE CAPABILITIES, THE CAPACITY TO RESPOND. WE NEED TO EXERCISE. WE CAN NEVER HAVE A SPECIFIC REASON EXACTLY ARE WE GOING TO RESPOND TO EVERY POSSIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE THREAT. BECAUSE THE WORLD AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO COMPLEX. AS LONG AS YOU THEIR CAPACITIES, THE CAPABILITIES AND THEY ARE EXERCISED, WE HAVE TO TRUST OUR POLITICAL LEADERS ARE ABLE TO TAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS SPIRIT THAT IS A VERY POSITIVE NOTE TO END ON. SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CLARITY, MESSAGE, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WATCHING HOW NATO DEFAULTS IN THE NEXT YEAR ON THE ROAD TO OUR NEXT SUMMIT IN WARSAW IN JULY OF NEXT YEAR. PLEASE JOIN IN THANKING SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG. [APPLAUSE] A. >> THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US. HAVE A GREAT REST OF THE DAY. [INAUDIBLE

01:00:06
Unidentified Speaker

CONVERSATIONS] [INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] [INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] >> AS OF THIS EVENT COMES TO TO A CLOSE, OFFICIALS IN JERUSALEM ARE TELLING THEY A.P. TODAY

*The transcript for this program was compiled from uncorrected Closed Cap

DARPA will test airborne laser ‘death ray’ this summer

By Claire Bernish
Global Research, May 26, 2015
The Anti-Media 25 May 2015

An endless sea of money flowing into the field of military technology creates constant advancements in new and terrifying ways to die, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is on the front lines in that mission. DARPA’s latest defense system, HELLADS, is one step closer to arming aircraft and drones with an exceptionally powerful and destructive, weaponized laser beam.

Set to begin testing at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico this summer, the High-Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System program has been developing an electrically and optically efficient laser for output from a lighter and more compact platform through DARPA contractor, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA ASI). The Gen 3 High Energy Laser System (HEL) measures just 4.26 x 1.31 x 1.64 feet, and uses a compact lithium-ion battery to produce a beam of between 150-300 kW for “deployable tactical platforms.”

To understand how alarming this latest technology actually is, a comparison to current laser weaponry is in order. Already in use on board the USS Ponce, the Navy’s Laser Weapon System produces a beam of light capable of destroying the electronics systems and overheating the engines of drones, small boats, and small aircraft — and can even explode warheads. And those lasers are just 30 kW. Lasers to be used with the HELLADS system are up to ten times more powerful, and even when tested at 50 kW, were able to deliver a consistently high-quality beam for up to 30 seconds at a time, and then only limited in scope by battery life.

But there’s more. Remember the goal of putting this framework in the air? Well, the same contractor that streamlined the laser has also developed the jet-powered Avenger drone which generates enough energy in flight to continually recharge that battery — giving the weapon unlimited ammunition from an agile, unmanned aircraft, capable of speeds around 450 mph, that can stay aloft for up to 18 hours at a time. But not yet.

HELLADS will first be tested on the ground against “rockets, mortars, vehicles and surrogate surface-to-air missiles,”according to a DARPA statement“The technical hurdles were daunting, but it is extremely gratifying to have produced a new type of solid-state laser with unprecedented power and beam quality for its size,” said program manager Rick Bagnell. “The HELLADS laser is now ready to be put to the test on the range against some of the toughest tactical threats our warfighters face.”

Though marketed primarily as a defense system, the statement adds, “Laser weapon systems provide additional capability for offensive missions as well—adding precise targeting with low probability of collateral damage […] Following the field-testing phase, the goal is to make the system available to the military services for further refinement, testing or transition to operational use.”

So, the question must be posed: When so many fight simply to survive, how gratifying can perfecting an obscenely destructive weapon of war really be?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-latest-in-terrifying-ways-to-die-darpas-airborne-death-ray/5451805

 

Vice President Biden at Brookings Institution speaks about Russia-Ukraine Conflict

C-SPAN, May 27, 2015
http://www.c-span.org/video/?326251-1/vice-president-biden-remarks-russiaukraine-conflict#Video of speech and transcript

Vice President Joe Biden
Strobe Talbott, President of Brookings Institution

Uncorrected transcript:
I have highlighted a few sections, but there is a great deal here.

HOST
00:00:13
Unidentified Speaker

MR. VICE PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US HERE, PARTICULARLY THE INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WE WELCOME YOU HERE TO BROOKINGS

00:00:27
Unidentified Speaker

TODAY. WE KNOW YOU WILL BE ADDRESSING US ON ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES OF OUR TIME , THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT. THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN A FRIEND OF THIS INSTITUTION FOR MANY YEARS. WELCOME BACK, MR. VICE PRESIDENT. VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: THANK YOU. FOLKS, LET ME BEGIN BY — AS I WALKED THROUGH THE ROOM HERE, REMINDING ME OF A STORY THEY TELL ABOUT CALVIN COOLIDGE. HE WAS AT A WHISTLE STOP TOUR, COMING BACK HOME, AND EVERY TIME THEY WOULD GET IN, HE WOULD STEP IN THE CABOOSE, HOW ARE YOU, MAN? STEP BACK IN HIS CABOOSE AND MAKE A SPEECH. THIS ONE-STOP THEY MADE SOMEWHERE IN OHIO, HE WALKED OUT, STOOD IN THE BACK OF THE CABOOSE, THE FLAG DRAPED SPARES, AND HE WALKED BACK IN AND THEY SAID, WHAT IS THE MATTER? AND HE SAID, WELL, THE AUDIENCE IS TOO BIG FOR CONVERSATION AND TOO SMALL FOR ORATION. I THINK WE ARE IN THAT PLACE. I WILL TRY TO DO NEITHER. [LAUGHTER] I WILL TRY TO FIND SOMETHING IN BETWEEN HERE. LET ME BEGIN BY THANKING YOU, NOT ONLY FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP BUT YOUR ADVICE OVER ALL THESE YEARS, PARTICULARLY ON THE SUBJECT. I HAVE TRIED TO KEEP CLOSE CONTACT WITH STROBE BECAUSE I FIND HIM TO BE ONE OF THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ON ISSUES THAT I HAVE A GREAT INTEREST IN AND, UNFORTUNATELY, ARE VERY MUCH CENTER STAGE THESE DAYS. I WANT TO THANK YOU ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU AND STEVE CAME OVER TO MY HOME TO DO A DEEP DIVE WITH ME TO BE MY REALITY CHECK ON THE ISSUE I AM GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT TODAY IN UKRAINE. AND MARTIN, IT IS ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU, MAN. I AM NOT SURE YOU SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE VICE PRESIDENCY, BUT — [LAUGHTER] — BUT YOU HAVE BEEN A GREAT, GREAT ASSET. I HOPE YOU HAVE AS MUCH ASSET — ACCESS AS I DO. >> [LAUGHTER] VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: [LAUGHTER] SOMETIMES I WISH YOU DIDN’T HAVE

00:02:32
Unidentified Speaker

ALL THE ACCESS. YOU KNOW, IT HAS BEEN 14 MONTHS SINCE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE. AND IT HAS LITERALLY TRANSFORMED THE LANDSCAPE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY. EVERYBODY WANTS THIS CONFLICT TO END AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE QUESTION IS, ON WHOSE TERMS AND HOW WILL IT END? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A REMOTE CONFLICT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS ARE GOING OVER WHO GETS WHAT. WHAT IS HAPPENING IN UKRAINE IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN THAT. IT IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NATION TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUTURES. IT IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF NATO, OUR COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE, AND OUR UNITY, OUR STRENGTH, OUR ABILITY TO DETER AGGRESSION TOGETHER. I THINK IT IS THAT BASIC. IT IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA ITSELF, I WOULD ARGUE, BECAUSE IF THE KREMLIN IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH ITS OWN FIEFDOM IN EASTERN UKRAINE, IT WILL ONLY FLAM — FAN THE FLAMES. BELIEVE ME, HELPING UKRAINE IN ITS DEFENSE AND DETERRENCE AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IS CRITICAL, CRITICAL TO CHECKING FURTHER AGGRESSION DOWN THE ROAD. I KEEP SAYING, AND THE PRESIDENT REMINDS ME, IT IS EITHER PAY ME NOW OR PAY ME LATER, BUT THERE IS A PRICE TAKE YOUR. WHAT HAPPEN IN UKRAINE AND HOW THE WORLD RESPONDED HAS, I THINK, CONSEQUENTIAL IN LOCATIONS — IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR INTERNATIONAL ORDER. IN PARTICULAR, THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLES OF SECURITY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND THE AND VOLATILITY OF BORDERS. CHINA AND MANY OTHER NATIONS ARE WATCHING VERY CLOSELY HOW THE WORLD RESPONSE. THEY WILL LEARN FROM THIS CONFLICT, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT PLAYS OUT, IN MY VIEW. BEFORE I TURN TO TODAY’S CRISIS, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SPEAK ABOUT OUR BROADER POLICY, THE OBAMA-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION POLICY WITH REGARD TO RUSSIA. I DON’T THINK ANYONE CAN LEGITIMATELY ACCUSE OUR ADMINISTRATION OF FAILING TO EXPLORE IN GOOD FAITH, IN GOOD FAITH THE PROGRESS — PROSPECT OF ESTABLISHING A CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA. SIX YEARS AGO IN THE FIRST SPEECH OF OUR ADMINISTRATION, I BELIEVE YOU THERE MR. SECRETARY, AT THE MUNICH SECURITY CONTEST — CONFERENCE, I ANNOUNCE YOU DID ARE PERNICIOUS — ANNOUNCED OUR POSITION. TO REVIEW MANY AREAS WHERE WE CAN AND SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER WITH RUSSIA, AND WHERE RUSSIA INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED TO WORK WITH US AS WELL. BUT EVEN THEN, I MADE CLEAR, I MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR, THAT, QUOTE, “WE WILL NOT RECOGNIZE ANY NATION HAVING INFLUENCE COULD WILL REMAIN ARGUE THAT SOVEREIGN STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN ALLIANCES.” I MEANT IT THEN, AND WE MEAN IT NOW. IN 2009, WHEN WE CAME TO OFFICE, PRESIDENT MANDELA — WAS IN POWER. AND HE TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO COMBAT RUSSIA’S — WHAT HE CALLED NIHILISM TO STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW. WITHOUT BEING NAIVE, WE DECIDED TO TEST THE PROCESS THAT RUSSIA WOULD STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW AND GRADUALLY EMBRACE THE PATH OF MODERN — ECONOMIC MODERNIZATION AND PATTERNS WHICH COULD HELP INTEGRATE RUSSIA INTO THE WORLD OF RESPONSIBLE NATIONS. AND IT WAS — IT WAS IN THAT SAME SPIRIT OVER SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIONS, THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTED RUSSIA’S MEMBERSHIP IN COUNTLESS INTERNODE — INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. WE ALSO WELCOME HIS POLITICAL REFORMS, LIKE THE DIRECT ELECTION OF GOVERNORS IN RUSSIA AND DECRIMINALIZATION OF — FROM 2009 2 2012, WE ACHIEVED A GREAT DEAL TOGETHER. A GREAT DEAL OF COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA TO ADVANCE OUR MUTUAL INTERESTS, RUSSIAN AND OURS. A NEW TREATY THAT REDUCED STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARSENALS BY ONE THIRD. A VITAL SUPPLY ROUTE FOR COALITION TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN. AT THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, RESOLUTIONS THAT PRESSURED BOTH NORTH KOREA AS WELL AS IRAN, AND BROUGHT THE WORLD WITHIN REACH OF AN HISTORIC DEAL WITH TORONTO — TEHRAN. YET TO BE DETERMINED, BUT WE ARE OPTIMISTIC. BUT WHEN PRIME MINISTER PUTIN RETURN TO THE KREMLIN IN 2012 AS PRESIDENT PUTIN, HE SAID RUSSIA ON A VERY DIFFERENT COURSE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. RE-CRIMINALIZING LIABLE, CALLING OFF DIRECT ELECTIONS FOR GOVERNORS, AND MAKING IT HARDER FOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO REGISTER. AGGRESSIVE REPRESSION AT HOME, INCLUDING SILENCING OF THE MOTHERS OF SOLDIERS DEPLOYED IN UKRAINE. CONTEMPT, CONTEMPT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF RUSSIA’S NEIGHBOR, BUT ALSO IN GEORGIA AND MOLDOVA. DISREGARD FOR RUSSIA’S OWN COMMITMENT MADE IN HELSINKI, PARIS, AND BUDAPEST. AND SO, THE WORLD LOOKS DIFFERENT TODAY THAN IT DID BEFORE HE BECAME — WE ASSUMED THE PRESIDENCY. AND PRESIDENT PUTIN MUST UNDERSTAND, AS HE HAS CHANGED, SO HAS OUR FOCUS. THAT IS WHY AT THIS YEARS SECURITY CONFERENCE IN MUNICH, I SPOKE TO REASSERT THE FUNDAMENTAL, BEDROCK PRINCIPLES OF A EUROPE WHOLE AND FREE. OF INFLUENCE. AND SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO CHOOSE OUR OWN ALLIES. IN PARTICULARLY, WITH VOLATILE BORDERS. AT THE CENTER OF RUSSIA’S FUNDAMENTAL CHOICE OVER WHAT TYPE OF PATH IT WILL PURSUE, IS THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE, IN MY VIEW. I HAVE NOT VISITED UKRAINE THREE TIMES SINCE THE CURRENT CONFLICT BEGAN. AND IT IS HARD TO FATHOM, UNLESS YOU GO THERE, AND MANY OF YOU HAVE, HOW MUCH THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED FOR THEMSELVES UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE. CORRELATING PEOPLE POWER TO RALLY AGAINST CORRUPTION, DEFENDING THEIR COUNTRY AGAINST BRUTAL RUSSIAN AGGRESSION WITH THE ODDS AGAINST THEM, STAYING UNIFIED, PUTTING PATRIOTISM BEFORE PERSONAL AMBITION, AND HOLDING IN THE FAIREST AND FREEST AND MOST WIDELY MONITORED ELECTIONS IN UKRAINIAN HISTORY. OF COURSE, PAINSTAKING WORK LIES AHEAD. TRANSITIONS ARE HARD, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS EVEN HARDER WHEN A POWERFUL NEIGHBOR IS ACTIVELY UNDERMINING EVERYTHING YOU DO. PRESIDENT POROSHENKO’S RIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE NECESSITY AND URGENCY TO UKRAINE TO ACT ON THE FOUR D’S — THE REGULARIZATION, D BUREAUCRATIC AS ASIAN — IT IS HARD TO EVEN SAY THE PHRASE — THE OLIGARCH AS ASIAN — DE OLIGARCHIZATION, AND DECENTRALIZATION. 268, UKRAINE NEEDS USE THE NEW LOSS IN THE BOOKS TO COMBAT CORRUPTION ON ALL LEVELS. I SPEAK WITH THEM ON AVERAGE ONCE A WEEK. IF YOU’RE EVER DID OUT OVER THE LAST YEAR. — IF YOU AVERAGE IT OUT OVER THE LAST YEAR. TO PASS LAWS, NOT HAVE TO IN FACT IMPLEMENT THE LAWS THAT THE PAST. UKRAINE NEEDS TO USE ALL THE TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL TO LIMIT THE ABILITY OF OLIGARCHS TO ABUSE THEIR MARKET POSITION OR EXERT PRESSURE ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. BY THE WAY, THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF THAT. WE ALL KNOW SINCE THE REVOLUTION, IT HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE LEVEL IN TERMS OF THE INFLUENCE OF OLIGARCHS AND CORRUPTION. BUT THEY ARE TRYING. THEY NEED TO KEEP WORKING TOWARDS DECENTRALIZATION TO ENSURE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS REALLY REPRESENTATIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE. AND ABOVE ALL, IT NEEDS TO KEEP LISTENING TO ITS PEOPLE AND TO UKRAINE CIVIL SOCIETY. EVERY TIME I HAVE MET, I HAVE SPENT’S — SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME WITH CIVIL SOCIETY. SO LONG AS UKRAINE LEADERS KEEP FAITH, THE UNITED STATES WILL CONTINUE TO STAND WITH THEM. IN TOTAL, WE HAVE PROVIDED OVER $470 MILLION IN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE. IN ADDITION, A $1 BILLION LOAN GUARANTEE LAST YEAR. ANOTHER $1 BILLION LOAN GUARANTEE SIGNED THIS MONTH. ANY POTENTIAL FURTHER $1 BILLION THIS YEAR IF UKRAINE CONTINUES ON THE PATH OF REFORM. THAT $470 MILLION INCLUDES NEARLY $200 MILLION TO THE ARMED FORCES, NATIONAL GUARD, AND BORDER SERVICES. MUCH OF THE DEBATE HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON WHETHER WE SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEFENSE OF LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. THAT IS DEBATE WITH HAVING AND IT CONTINUES. MY VIEWS ARE SOMEWHAT KNOWN ON THAT. BUT LET ME NOT — LET US NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT UKRAINE ALSO NEEDS BASIC MILITARY AGREEMENT AND TRAINING, WHICH WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING ON THE GROUND. AND OUR ALLIES, OUR NATO ALLIES, HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE UKRAINE TRUST FUND. BUT MORE IS NEEDED TO BE DONE. AND THE PRESIDENT AND I SPOKE ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY WITH THE NATO SECRETARY GENERAL. AND IT IS ON NATO’S AGENDA IN WARSAW. FINALLY, OUR ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE HUMANITARIAN TRAGEDY CREATED BY RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. IT IS PROFOUNDLY IN OUR SELF INTEREST, AND I WOULD ARGUE THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE WORLD, THAT THIS NEW UKRAINE EMERGES A PROSPEROUS, DEMOCRATIC, INDEPENDENT REFORM ORIENTED COUNTRY THAT CANNOT BE BRIBED, COERCED, OR INTIMIDATED. THAT IS WHAT THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE ARE DEVOTING THEIR LIVES TO. GIVING THEIR LIVES FOR. AND ONE DAY, IT WILL SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR RUSSIANS ACROSS THE BORDER WHO WILL SEE WHAT IS POSSIBLE WHEN A COUNTRY EMBARKS ON REAL REFORM. THE CONFLICT OVER UKRAINE, I THINK, IS A TEST FOR THE WEST. A TEST FOR THE EU. A TEST FOR NATO. A TEST FOR US. PRESIDENT PUTIN IS WAGERING THAT HE HAS GREATER STAYING POWER THAN ALL THE PARTIES I JUST MENTIONED HAVE. AND UKRAINE, HE IS BETTING THAT HE CAN OUTLAST THE CURRENT REFORMIST PRO-EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT AND UNDERMINE IT ECONOMICALLY. PRESIDENT PUTIN IS ALSO TRYING TO SCARE ALLIES AND PARTNERS WITH THE THREAT OF NEW AND AGGRESSIVE RUSSIA. TERMS WE HAVEN’T HEARD IN A LONG TIME. IN TERMS RELATING TO NUCLEAR POWER, NUCLEAR ARMS. AS IT TRIES TO RATTLE THE CAGE, THE KREMLIN IS WORKING HARD TO BUY OFF AND CORRUPT EUROPEAN POLITICAL FORCES, FUNDING BOTH RIGHT-WING AND LEFT-WING ANTI-SYSTEMIC PARTIES THROUGHOUT EUROPE. PRESIDENT PUTIN SEES SUCH POLITICAL FORCE AS — AS — AS USEFUL TOOLS TO BE MANIPULATED, TO CREATE CRACKS IN THE EUROPEAN BODY OF POLITICS, WHICH YOU CAN THEN EXPLOIT. I REMEMBER WORKING WITH — WHICH I WILL SPEAK TO AND A MOMENT ABOUT — EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY. I FOUND IT FASCINATING THAT RUSSIA IS FUNDING THE GREEN PARTY. [LAUGHTER] THEIR NEWFOUND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN HAS REALLY IMPRESSED ME. BUT THESE ACTIONS ARE EMBEDDED BY HYPER AGGRESSIVE STATE-SPONSORED RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT ACTIVELY SPREADS MISINFORMATION, AND DOES IT VERY WELL, I MIGHT ADD. BUT ON THE WHOLE, EUROPEAN UNITY IS HELD. EUROPE IS HUNG TOGETHER. EUROPEAN LEADERS LAST MET ON MARCH 25, AND THEY SPOKE CLEARLY. AND WE HAVE ALSO MADE OUR POSITION CLEAR. THE UNITED STATES’ SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA MUST REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE FULLY IMPLEMENTED. IT IS MY HOPE AND EXPECTATION THAT WHEN EUROPEAN LEADERS MEET AGAIN AT THE END OF JUNE, THEY RENEW EXISTING SANCTIONS UNTIL IT IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED. THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THAT UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIA’S ACTIONS TO THE WORLD, AND COORDINATE CLOSELY WITH OUR PARTNERS AND ALLIES TO ENSURE THAT FURTHER AGGRESSION ON RUSSIA’S PART IS MET WITH FURTHER COSTS. IF RUSSIA AGAIN MOVES BEYOND THE LINE OF CONTACT. THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR STRATEGY. TAKEN TOGETHER, IT IS CLEAR. RUSSIA IS TAKING ACTIONS WE CAN UNDERMINE AS EUROPEAN NEIGHBORS. AND REASSERT ITS — HEGEMONIC AMBITIONS. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND. IT IS NOT JUST UKRAINE. CRITICAL OF THIS EFFORT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE VISION TO STRENGTHEN THE TRANSATLANTIC COOPERATION AND EUROPE ITSELF TO BE ABLE TO RESIST RUSSIAN COERCION AND LEAVE NO DAYLIGHT AND THE TACTICS OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER. UKRAINE IS INTEGRAL TO THAT. BUT THE ACTS OF RUSSIAN OPPORTUNISM AND AGGRESSION REQUIRES US TO ALSO ADDRESS MORE BROADLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EUROPEAN POINT OF VULNERABILITY. REINVIGORATING AND WE TOOLING NATO TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO NEW HYBRID WARFARE THREATS THAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY. FINALLY GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT EUROPE’S ENERGY SECURITY, SO WE TAKE AWAY RUSSIA’S ABILITY TO USE ENERGY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON. AND PROMOTING EUROPE’S ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECONOMIC SECURITY. IT STARTS WITH NATO, THOUGH. REINFORCING OUR ALLIANCE AND HONING THE TOOLS AT OUR DISPOSAL. THE STEPS WE ARE TAKING TO MAKE CLEAR THAT OUR ALLIES IN ARTICLE FIVE OF THE NATO CHILI — TREATY REPRESENT A SACRED COMMITMENT ON OUR PART AND EVERY OTHER NATO MEMBER. NATO’S READINESS ACTION PLAN IS AN IMPORTANT START, ALLOWING US TO STEP UP OUR MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE AIR AND THE SEA AND THE LAND, FROM THE BALTICS AND POLAND TO ROMANIA AND BULGARIA. AND WE ARE PLEASED THAT SOME OF OUR NATO ALLIES HAVE MADE SIMILAR CONTRIBUTIONS. BUT AT THIS TIME OF CRISIS, TOO MANY OF OUR ALLIES ARE STILL FAILING TO MEET MAYOR — THEIR COMMITMENT THEY MADE AT THE WHEEL SUMMIT — WALES SUMMIT. THE SITUATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. COLLECTIVE DEFENSE MUST BE SHARED, A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. NOT JUST IN RHETORIC, BUT IN RESOURCES AS WELL. WHEN IT COMES TO ENERGY, WE NEED TO WORK ACROSS THE ATLANTIC TO DENY RUSSIA THE ABILITY TO USE RESOURCES AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST THEIR NEIGHBORS. AS I SAID ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BEFORE, IT IS TIME TO MAKE ENERGY SECURITY THE NEXT CHAPTER IN THE EUROPEAN PROJECT OF INTEGRATION AND MARKET EXPANSION. IT IS TIME TO REPLACE COUNTRY BY COUNTRY STRATEGIES WITH A COHERENT, COLLECTIVE EFFORT. FOCUSED ON DIVERSIFYING FUEL TYPES, SUPPLY SOURCES, AND ROUTES. IMPROVING EFFICIENCY, MAKING INVESTMENTS AND MARKET REFORMS, INCLUDING GREATER FLEXIBILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO TRANSPORT NATIONAL GAS. — NATURAL GAS. WE HAVE ALREADY MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS. IN THE FACE OF RUSSIAN CUTOFF OF GAS SUPPLIES TO UKRAINE LAST YEAR, WE SUPPORTED A GAS DEAL. WE WORKED WITH UKRAINE’S NEIGHBORS TO INCREASE RIVERS FLOWS OF GAS SHIPMENTS TO UKRAINE. — RIVERS — FLOWS OF REVERSE. — — — — RIVERS — RIVERSE FLOWS OF GAS SHIPMENTS TO UKRAINE. THAT WILL HELP FOSTER COMPETITION IN EUROPE, RATHER THAN DOMINANCE OF ONE SUPPLIER. WE APPLAUD AND ENCOURAGE EUROPE’S EFFORTS TO TAKE MORE REGIONAL APPROACH IS BECAUSE A MORE STABLE EUROPEAN SUPPLY OF ENERGY MEANS A MORE SECURE WORLD. AND WE ARE READY TO DO OUR PART, AS OUR EUROPEAN FRIENDS KNOW. AND FINALLY, WE NEED TO REBUILD AND IN SOME PLACES BILL FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF EUROPEAN SECURITY. IN THAT SPIRIT, WE SUPPORT EUROPEAN INITIATIVES TO RESPOND, AS WE HAVE, FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION THAT BEGAN IN THE LAST DECADE. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE NOW KNOW THE TYPES OF POLICIES THAT EFFICIENTLY SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BOOST EMPLOYMENT. INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND HUMAN CAPITAL. LOWERING BARRIERS TO TRADE AND INVESTMENT. MAKING REFORMS TO IMPROVE THE BUSINESS CLIMATE AND A REGULATORY PROCESS. WE ARE PURSUING THE TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP TO CREATE GROWTH AND JOBS AND STRENGTHEN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM. AND WE HAVE ESPECIALLY FOCUSED ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION. CORRUPTION IS THE NEW TOOL TO FOREIGN POLICY. IT HAS NEVER BEEN AS HANDY AND IS USEFUL AT THE HANDS OF NATIONS THAT WANT TO DISRUPT AND OLIGARCHS THAT RESPOND TO THEM. IT IS LIKE THE KRYPTONITE OF A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY. IT SIPHON’S AWAY RESOURCES, IT DESTROYS — SIPHONS AWAY RESOURCES, IT DESTROYS — AND CONFRONT PEOPLE’S DIGNITY. AND THE STAKES ARE STRATEGIC, AS WELL AS ECONOMIC, BECAUSE RUSSIA AND OTHERS ARE USING CORRUPTION AND OLIGARCHS AS TOOLS OF COERCION. WE NEED TO HELP SOME OF THE NEWER EU NATIONS AND THOSE ASPIRING TO JOIN THEM TO SHORE UP THEIR INSTITUTIONS, PUT IN PLACE THE MECHANISMS REQUIRED TO AVOID BECOMING VULNERABLE TO THIS NEW — EXCUSE ME — TO THIS NEW FOREIGN-POLICY WEAPON. WE TAKE THESE DEVELOPMENTS TOGETHER, AND IT IS CLEAR, IN MY VIEW, THAT WE HAVE REACHED ANOTHER MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONSHIP THAT CALLS OUT FOR LEADERSHIP. THE KIND OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS DELIVERED. I THINK IT IS THAT BASIC. I THINK IT IS SIMILAR. I BELIEVE THE TERRAIN, THOUGH, IS FUNDAMENTALLY IN OUR FAVOR. NOT BECAUSE OF THE INEVITABILITY OF ANY KIND OF TRAJECTORY TOWARDS UNIFICATION OR INTEGRATION WITH DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS, EVERY GENERATION HAS ITS DEMAGOGUES AND REVISIONS AND TRANSITIONS ARE FULL OF PAROL — PERIL. WHAT MAKES ME OPTIMISTIC IS PRESIDENT CLINTON’S VISION — HAS VERY LITTLE — PRESIDENT PUTIN’S VISION OFFERS VERY LITTLE OTHER THAN MYTHS AND ILLUSIONS. THE FALSE PROMISE OF RETURNING TO A PAST WHEN THAT PASSED WAS NOT TOO GOOD OF A PAST. THE SLEIGHT-OF-HAND THAT PRESENTS THE BULLYING OF CIVIL SOCIETIES, DISSIDENTS ENGAGED AS SUBSTITUTES FOR STRONG LEADERSHIP. THE PROPAGANDA THAT CONFLATES AGGRESSION. IT IS THAT EASY FOR GOVERNMENTS — IT IS NOT EASY FOR GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR PEOPLE IN THE 20% THREE. BUT — IN THE 21ST CENTURY. IT IS LIKE PHYSICS THESE DAYS. YOU NEED POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OPENNESS, RESPECT FOR LAW, STRONG FUNCTIONING INSTITUTION AND MARKETS. WITHOUT ALL THOSE IN PLACE, ECONOMIC GROWTH DOES NOT OCCUR AND WILL NOT OCCUR. AND TOGETHER, WE, THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE, CAN REASSERT AND STICK TO OUR PRINCIPLES, DELIVER ON OUR COMMITMENTS, AND HELP MAKE UKRAINE AND EUROPE KEEP DOING WHAT WORKS. THEN I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT WE WILL LEAVE THE TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONSHIP STRONGER, AND EUROPE EVEN MORE SECURE AND FREE. I THINK YOU FOR INDULGENCE OF LISTENING TO ME. AND IT HAS BEEN A GREAT PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU. THANK YOU. >> [APPLAUSE] VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: THANK YOU. >> [APPLAUSE]

00:24:33
Unidentified Speaker

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY STROKE TO MAKE —

00:24:41
Unidentified Speaker

STORBE TO MAKE MYSELF — STROBE TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. I’M SURE THE PRESIDENT WILL UNDERSTAND IF I SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, TAKING A FEW QUESTIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: GOOD TO SEE YOU, JAVIER. GREAT TO BE HERE WITH YOU,

00:25:04
Unidentified Speaker

MAN. COME TO THE MICROPHONE. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] — WHAT

00:25:17
Unidentified Speaker

I THINK IS THAT WE ARE IN THE SAME BOAT, THE EUROPEANS AND THE AMERICANS. IN PARTICULAR, WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AND UNDERLINED VERY MUCH, THE AGREEMENTS HAVE TO BE RESPECTED. IT IS TRUE, WE WILL NOT KNOW IF THEY ARE RESPECTED UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR. AND I THINK WE CAN KEEP ON WORKING TOGETHER AND WE WIN THIS BATTLE. VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I THINK SO, TOO. AND THE OTHER THING I THINK, BY THE WAY, IS THAT I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME WITH UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP. THEY ARE PREPARED TO MAKE GENUINE CONCESSIONS ON DECENTRALIZATION. THEY ARE PREPARED TO MAKE GENUINE COMMITMENTS TO LOCAL CONTROL IN THE EAST AND — AND SO — BUT IT IS — IT IS KIND OF DIFFICULT TO DO THIS. THE ONE THING ABOUT — IT IS AWFUL HARD TO HOLD FREE ELECTIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINE OF CONTROL WE DON’T CONTROL THE BORDER. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I’M HOPING THAT US AND OUR EUROPEAN COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK OUT BECAUSE THERE HAS TO BE — PART OF THE DEAL IS FREE ELECTIONS. IN THE EAST AND THAT’S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT. >> MR. VICE PRESIDENT, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO BROOKINGS. WHY ISN’T IT OBVIOUS THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE EXPORTING ENERGY TO EUROPE? VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: WELL, IT IS OBVIOUS.

00:26:59
Unidentified Speaker

AND WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. THE PROBLEM IS, UNDER OUR SYSTEM, THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT — THAT COMPANIES CONTRACT TO GET THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO — TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE NATURAL GAS THAT IS EXPORTABLE. AND UNDER OUR LAW, WE CANNOT DIRECT A PARTICULAR COMPANY TO SEND THE GAS TO A PARTICULAR PLACE. NOW, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION IN MANY CORNERS, PROBABLY HERE AT BROOKINGS, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE SOME EXCEPTION MADE AS TO BEING ABLE TO DIRECTLY DIRECT IT, BUT UNDER OUR SYSTEM, ALL THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION ARE ABLE TO CONTACT WITH THE FOLKS — I FORGET HOW MANY CONTRACTS, I THINK 13 OR SOMETHING — ANYWAY, ALL THE CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR ACCESS TO THAT NATURAL GAS. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS, YOU KNOW, IT IS AT MARKET PRICES. AND — AND — BUT IT IS THE THING I HAVE THE HARDEST TIME EXPLAINING IN EUROPE. BECAUSE UNDER THEIR SYSTEM, MOST OF THEM COME WITH IT SAYS, WELL, THE PRESIDENT DECIDES. WE WROTE A POLICY, WE ARE GOING TO EXPORT X TRILLIONS, YOU KNOW, UNITS OF GAS TO SUCH AND SUCH A COUNTRY. IT IS NOT — LEGALLY, WE CANNOT DO THAT. >> I DON’T WANT YOU TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH THE PRESIDENT — VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I AM HAPPY TO TAKE ANOTHER ONE, IF YOU WANT. >> OK.

00:28:40
Unidentified Speaker

I WOULD BE IN TROUBLE WITH YOUR STAFF, WHICH IS REALLY SERIOUS. [LAUGHTER] VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT. >> —

00:28:46
Unidentified Speaker

HOW WORRIED ARE YOU ABOUT THE REPUBLICS OF THE LARGE RUSSIAN MINORITIES? VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: WELL, I AM

00:28:59
Unidentified Speaker

WORRIED — OH, I HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE MICROPHONE. [LAUGHTER] SORRY, SORRY. I AM USED TO BEING TOO FAMILIAR WITH THIS CROWD. AND I APOLOGIZE. THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERENCING BY THE ASYMMETRY I’M TALKING ABOUT. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR TOPIC AT — IN WARSAW AT THE NEXT NATO MEETING. BUT IT IS ALREADY ENTRAINED IN SOME OF THE ACTIONS WE HAVE TAKEN, RELATIVE TO THE ROTATION OF FORCES AND SO ON. BUT IT IS A CONCERN. IT IS A CONCERN, USING THE FALSE ASSERTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A RUSSIAN MINORITY, OR IN SOME PLACES, CLOSE TO A COLOR REALITY — CLOSE TO A PLURALITY THAT IS BEING PERSECUTED. IT IS — IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT WE ARE RESOLVED TO STAND WITH THE BALTIC STATES AS THAT OCCURS. BUT THAT PLANNING IS ENTRAINED AND HAS BEEN AS WE SPEAK. BUT IT IS A CONCERN. I WOULD BE LYING TO YOU IF I SAID IT WASN’T. MARTIN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I CANNOT LEAVE — >> I CANNOT LEAVE WITHOUT TAKING THE VICE PRESIDENT’S QUESTION. [LAUGHTER] >> [INDISCERNIBLE] >> [LAUGHTER] VICE PRESIDENT

00:30:34
Unidentified Speaker

BIDEN: GO AHEAD. >> THE — SPEECH THAT YOU JUST GAVE WAS A VERY TOUGH ONE. ADMIRABLY TOUGH. AT THE SAME TIME, WITH THE U.S. STANDING UP TO

00:30:51
Unidentified Speaker

MR. PUTIN IN A WAY THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, WE ARE ALSO COOPERATING WITH HIM ON WHAT YOU CALL GLOBAL ISSUES — NONPROLIFERATION, TERRORISM, EVEN IN A PLACE LIKE SYRIA. HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT KIND OF TENSION BETWEEN COOPERATION AND COMPETITION? VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: LOOK, HUMAN NATURE IS HUMAN NATURE. IT DOESN’T CHANGE BASED UPON WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE READING THE MOTIVES AND ACTIONS OF A HEAD OF STATE, OR YOUR BROTHER, OR YOUR PARTNER IN YOUR ENTERPRISE. AND THAT IS LIFE. THE COOPERATION — THE ONE THING I’M COUNTING ON WITH — WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN — I HAVE HAD AN OCCASION TO SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT TIME WITH — IS THAT AT HIS CORE, HE IS PRACTICAL. AT HIS CORE, HE WILL PUSH AS FAR AS HE CAN, IN MY VIEW, UNTIL HE REACHES A RESISTANCE THAT, IN FACT, SAYS THERE IS A BIG PRICE TO PAY. AND HE MAY MAKE A MISTAKE AND CONTINUE, BUT IS A CALCULATION, I BELIEVE, HE WILL ASSUME. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT HIS BEHAVIOR OVER HIS CAREER, HE IS A PRACTICAL GUIDE. — GUY. AND IT SEEMS TO ME, AND IT HAS BEEN THE HISTORY OF SUCCESSFUL AMERICAN POLICY GOING BACK 100 YEARS, THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO COOPERATE, WHETHER THERE IS A CAREER — MUTUAL INTEREST, MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE THAT MATTER TO THE SECURITY AND WELL-BEING OF YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR ALLIES AND YOUR FRIEND. QUITE FRANKLY, I SEE IT’S BEING OVERWHELMINGLY IN OUR INTEREST TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE IN IRAN. I WOULD ARGUE THAT — LET ME CHOOSE MY WORDS A LITTLE BIT HERE — THERE HAS BEEN A LOT WRITTEN BY SOME VERY BRIGHT PEOPLE HERE AND IN OTHER THINK TANKS AROUND THE WORLD THAT PUTIN WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO RESPOND IN A NEGATIVE WAY AND COST US — RAISE THE COSTS FOR THE UNITED STATES FOR BEING THE LEADER OF IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON HIM. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF SPECULATION THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE WOULD DO RIGHT OFF THE BAT WOULD BE PULLOUT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN. WHICH OVERWHELMINGLY IS IN HIS INTEREST NOT TO DO THAT. IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY IN HIS INTEREST, AND WOULD BE INCREASINGLY OBVIOUS TO BOTH THE AND I RON, — IRAN, THAT ABSENT SOME KIND OF NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT, THEY ARE REAPING A WHIRLWIND AS WE ARE. SO I ALWAYS COUNT ON SELF INTEREST. BEING A MOTIVATING FACTOR FOR, MY PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY, MARTIN, ALL POLITICS IS PERSONAL. AND I MEAN THAT. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OTHER GUY IS LOOKING FOR, OR THE OTHER WOMAN IS LOOKING FOR, WHAT THEY PERCEIVE TO BE THEIR INTERESTS. IT IS CLEARLY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS RUSSIA, THAT — TO EXAGGERATE THE POINT — THAT YOU DON’T END UP WITH ISIL CONTROLLING ALL OF SYRIA. IT IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE INTERESTS OF RUSSIA, AND I WOULD ARGUE CHINA, THAT IRAN NOT BECOME A NUCLEAR POWER. AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE OF MUTUAL INTEREST. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU ARE NATIONAL AND TOUGH, — RATIONAL AND TOUGH, YOU WOULD LOOK TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE CLEARLY IN YOUR BENEFIT, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE A CONCESSION ON SOMETHING THAT IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE AND VALUE TO YOU. AND THUS FAR, WE HAVE NOT REACHED THAT POINT. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION OF WE WILL NOT STAY — THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL — THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION OF WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PART OF THE P5 PLUS ONE, ONLY IF YOU DO THE FOLLOWING. SO THESE ARE TWO MATURE NATIONS, TWO TOP LEADERS WHO KNOW WHAT INTERESTS ARE FOR THEIR COUNTRY. AND I WOULD ARGUE, MARTIN, THAT THERE IS NO — THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN DID NOT START OFF WITH A BROAD STRATEGY, AS TO HOW HE WAS GOING TO RESPOND OR DEAL WITH — WITH RUSSIA OR EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES. I THINK HE STARTED OFF WITH A STRATEGY THAT HE WAS DETERMINED TO BUILD UP THE RUSSIAN MILITARY FROM THE PLACE HE FOUND IT. BUT I THINK IT WAS MORE OPPORTUNISM THEN ANY STRATEGY. — THAN ANY STRATEGY. AND WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR, WHAT WE SAY, OFF RAMPS FOR PRESIDENT PUTIN. WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO REPAIR SAME. WE ARE NOT FOR REGIME CHANGE. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INSIDE OF RUSSIA. WE ARE LOOKING FOR HIM TO, AND ARGUE, ACT MORE RATIONALLY — — — IN OUR VIEW, ACT MORE RATIONALLY. THANK YOU ALSO MUCH FOR LISTENING. >> [APPLAUSE] >> [INDISTINCT

00:36:45
Unidentified Speaker

CHATTER] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. — [INDISCERNIBLE] >> [LAUGHTER] >> [INDISTINCT CHATTER] >>

00:37:00
Unidentified Speaker

THANK YOU.

00:37:03
Unidentified Speaker

THANK YOU ALL VERY, VERY MUCH. >> [APPLAUSE] >> [INDISTINCT

00:37:08
Unidentified Speaker

CHATTER] [CAPTIONS

00:37:11
Unidentified Speaker
00:37:13
Unidentified Speaker

COPYRIGHT NATIONAL CABLE SATELLITE CORP. 2015] [CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,

00:37:18
Unidentified Speaker

WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CAPTION CONTENT AND ACCURACY. VISIT NCICAP.ORG] >> YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE ENTIRE EVENT — SEE THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COMMENT IN THEIR ENTIRETY SHORTLY ON C-SPAN.ORG.

00:37:31
Unidentified Speaker

THE HILL WRITES, QUOTE, HE HAS ASKED THE PRESIDENT TO START OVER IN DRAFT ANOTHER AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE IT IS, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO WAGE THIS BATTLE. — THAT EXPLICITLY DELEGATES WAR POWERS TO CONGRESS. A LETTER FROM WALTER JONES AND MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRAT JAMES —

Уроки «Андижанского расстрела»

Игорь Панкратенко
20.05.2015
Stoletie.RU
Десять лет назад в Узбекистане произошли трагические события, об истинной подоплеке которых спорят до сих пор
Уроки «Андижанского расстрела»

«Андижанский расстрел»

общеупотребительное обозначение на Западе произошедшей 13 мая 2005 года в этом узбекском городе трагедии. По различным оценкам, число погибших в ходе выступлений составляет от двухсот до пятисот человек. Примерно полтысячи бежало через соседнюю Киргизию и затем осело в США и Европе. Еще около двухсот человек, причастных к событиям, получили тюремные сроки.

Последствий у андижанских событий было много, в их числе – и санкции Запада против Узбекистана, и поворот Ташкента к Москве и Пекину, и вывод американской военной базы с территории страны. Существует несколько версий произошедшего, и в официальной, и в, скажем так, «правозащитной» трактовке трагедии есть нестыковки и «черные пятна».

Но все это, по большому счету, обычная для событий такого масштаба разноголосица, не меняющая главного: десять лет назад исламистское подполье, при поддержке Запада, пыталось поднять в Узбекистане мятеж. Который, в случае успеха, мог запустить «демократическое переформатирование постсоветской Средней Азии» почти на шесть лет раньше «арабской весны». С той лишь разницей, что вся кровавая «турбулентность» происходила бы не где-то на Ближнем Востоке, а в непосредственной близости от российских границ, в «мягком южном подбрюшье» Москвы.

«Андижан-2005» – это кульминация многоуровневой игры, в которой сошлись и власти Узбекистана, и американские спецслужбы, и западные технологи «цветных революций», и исламисты.

У каждой стороны в этой игре была своя цель, за достижение которой они готовы были щедро платить жизнями мирных граждан.

Уроки тех событий нам бы внимательно изучить. Но в самом Узбекистане о произошедшем вспоминать не любят. Запад делает вид, что уж он-то был совсем ни при чем. А у России, как обычно, слишком много других забот, чтобы уделять повышенное внимание тому, что же там происходит, на этом Востоке. Так и сейчас: приходится многое «оставлять за бортом», чтобы в одной статье дать хотя бы общие контуры происходившего. И начать, наверное, нужно… с Афганистана.

Теракты «9/11» и назначение Джорджем Бушем-младшим афганских талибов мишенью для «возмездия» предоставили команде неоконсерваторов Чейни и Рамсфелда, опиравшихся на единомышленников в ЦРУ и Пентагоне, возможность приступить к реализации проекта «За Новый Американский Век». В соответствии с ним планировалось разместить в постсоветской Средней Азии военные части и специальные формирования. Официально – для предотвращения террористических угроз. В действительности – для обеспечения контроля над регионом и создания в нем рычагов управления политической ситуацией, отдельных элементов «глубинного государства», механизмы которого уже успешно действовали в Европе, Турции, Египте и других странах.

Собственно, этот проект разрабатывался с 1992 года, но к его реализации американские «неоконы» осторожно, шаг за шагом приступили к концу девяностых. Плотные контакты между ЦРУ и узбекскими спецслужбами были установлены в 1997-1998 годах. Первоначально их целью было создание канала оперативной связи с «Северным альянсом» через Ташкент. А после взрывов бомб у посольств США в Дар-эс-Саламе и Найроби в 1998 году спецслужбы США и Узбекистана начали проведение совместных операций против талибов и их союзников из ИДУ – «Исламского движения Узбекистана».

И очень важно знать: соглашению 2001 года о размещении первой и самой крупной на территории постсоветских стран американской военной базы Карши-Ханабад – или К-2 – на территории Узбекистана предшествовало предварительное соглашение местных спецслужб о сотрудничестве с ЦРУ, которое было заключено в 1999 году. В итоге 11 сентября 2001 года спецподразделения американской армии уже находились на территории Узбекистана, на К-2. Спустя еще десять дней, за две недели до формального военного соглашения между армией США и узбекскими военными, ЦРУ уже направило на базу Карши-Ханабад свой персонал.

Причем «Талибан»-«Талибаном», но для «фактории» ЦРУ в Узбекистане главной задачей было закрепление на территории страны. Создание элементов того самого «глубинного государства» и его боевых отрядов, на роль которых планировалось привлечь боевиков ИДУ.

Ведь принятые в восьмидесятых годах директором ЦРУ Уильямом Кейси решения по ведению тайных операций в Афганистане касались не только этой страны. К их разработке приложили руку не столько бюрократические структуры Лэнгли, сколько директора саудовской разведки – сначала Камаль Адам, а затем и принц Турки бен Фейсал. Среди этих решений нужно выделить два.

Первое – создание своеобразного «иностранного легиона», предназначенного для оказания помощи афганским моджахедам. Речь идет о сети поддержки, которую мы знаем сегодня под именем «Аль-Каиды». Второе – активное агентурное проникновение на территорию советской Средней Азии, вербовка «про запас» граждан республик этого региона.

Именно из этой агентуры состоял вначале костяк ИДУ, и опирался он на организационные и финансовые возможности, созданные ЦРУ и саудитами. Узбекские исламисты не испытывали недостатка в финансовых средствах. Причем денежная помощь поступала к ним не только из Афганистана. Известно, что подданный Саудовской Аравии, уйгур по национальности, Мухаммад-Амин Туркистони вручил в 1999 году одному из лидеров узбекских исламских радикалов Тахиру Юлдашеву 260 тысяч долларов для закупки оружия, половина которого, в соответствии с требованиями Туркистони, была передана уйгурским сепаратистам КНР.

И вот что интересно: наращивание американского присутствия в Узбекистане странным – или не странным?.. – образом совпало с ростом активности ИДУ. В этот период, с середины 2001 по 2005 год, численность боевиков ИДУ составляла около 10 тысяч человек, военизированные формирования имели миллионы американских долларов на своих счетах и новейшее вооружение в арсеналах. На территории Афганистана, которую активно «чистили» в этот период американцы, действовало несколько лагерей для подготовки боевиков, и эти «курсы» чудесным образом не попадали под бомбовые удары авиации «Международных силы содействия безопасности».

На афганской территории ИДУ действовало наравне с талибами, в некоторых военных ситуациях лидеры этого движения демонстрировали свою самостоятельность и превосходство. Словом, по полной программе шло формирование «сил вторжения» в Узбекистан, которые должны были сыграть роль детонатора дестабилизации с последующим «демократическим переформатированием». О своих планах лидер узбекских исламистов Тахир Юлдашев заявлял не где-нибудь в пещере, как его старший коллега Усама бен Ладен, а в интервью «Радио Свобода»: «Мы знаем свою цель, эта цель – свергнуть существующий в Узбекистане строй, освободить из застенков около ста тысяч наших братьев и сестер – верующих мусульман Узбекистана, и создать в Узбекистане такой режим, при котором люди могли бы свободно исповедать свою веру».

Даже самому стороннему наблюдателю к 2003 году стало ясно, что Вашингтон ведет в стране двойную игру, реализуя собственный план перехода власти в Ташкенте: от Ислама Каримова к американским кандидатам.

Ничего странного в этом не было. Планировщики в Белом доме уже сформулировали стратегию Вашингтона в этом регионе, среди элементов которой бывший директор Отдела евразийских отношений в Совете безопасности США Розмари Форсайт выделяла в начале «нулевых» годов следующие задачи:

– способствовать ослаблению влияния Содружества независимых государств и России;

– осуществлять экономическое проникновение США в целях укрепления американского присутствия в регионе;

– вовлекать центральноазиатские государства в рыночные отношения для максимального извлечения выгод от неравноценного обмена готовой продукции на сырьевые товары;

– осуществлять увязку экономических планов с конъюнктурой региональной политики, предусматривавшей «сдерживание» Ирана и поощрение Турции и Саудовской Аравии в качестве проводников западных интересов среди населения.

Заодно в Белом доме были сформулированы и требования к среднеазиатской политической элите: «Тщательно продуманное участие Запада – необходимое условие для изменения траекторий развития государств в Центральной Азии. Но самого по себе этого участия недостаточно. Внешний мир может обеспечить прямые инвестиции, техническую помощь, займы и дотации, но требуется стремление к реформам в самих государствах региона, как мы это видели в Киргизии. Оно должно исходить от населения, согласного терпеть неурядицы, связанные с политическими и экономическими изменениями. И, что еще важнее, оно должно быть у лидеров, готовых соблюдать сроки пребывания у власти, определенные конституцией, проводить свободные и честные выборы – даже если предвыборные опросы показывают, что их ждет проигрыш, и оставить свой пост в случае поражения».

Заявленным требованиям не отвечал ни один из лидеров постсоветских государств Средней Азии, политический «культур-мультур» постсоветских элит был совершенно иным.

Ислам Каримов совершенно не намеревался «переформатировать» Узбекистан под стандарты «американской демократии», которые на Востоке всегда оборачиваются для государств еще худшей диктатурой, утратой самостоятельности и переходом природных ресурсов под внешнее управление.

По инициативе узбекской стороны началось свертывание сотрудничества, последовали ограничения в деятельности оперативников ЦРУ на территории страны и прочие неприятные для Вашингтона вещи. А потому примерно к концу 2003 года Ислам Каримов был признан американской стороной «неперспективным» для дальнейшего сотрудничества.

На официальном уровне это выразилось, в первую очередь, в свертывании экономического сотрудничества, Ташкенту отказали в дежурной западной «морковке» для постсоветских государств, будь то Россия, Киргизия или Узбекистан: инвестициях, той самой «сладости», которой морочили головы новым правителям, пришедшим на развалины СССР. Перед официальным визитом в США в 2002 году Ислам Каримов излучал оптимизм: «Эта страна располагает огромным инвестиционным потенциалом, – заявил он. – Наши тесные контакты с Соединенными Штатами помогут нам в проведении наших экономических реформ».

Спустя несколько лет он откровенно сказал в беседе с Владимиром Путиным: «Мы думали, что нас на международной арене ждут с распростертыми объятиями. Зря думали».

Были и откровенно демонстративные сигналы Запада. Руководство Европейского банка реконструкции и развития – ранее предоставлявшее Ташкенту займы – потребовало от Каримова осудить насилие в местах заключения, причем это сделать публично. Такое заявление, по замыслу организаторов, должно было продемонстрировать готовность узбекского руководства к либеральным реформам. Когда президент банкирам в этом отказал, деятельность ЕБРР в стране была свернута.

Ну, и по мелочи. В 2003 году суд в Нью-Джерси вынес вердикт, в котором право на двух детей дочери Каримова, Гульнары, было признано за ее мужем, американцем Мансуром Максуди. А сама она, успевшая до развода вывезти детей на родину, была признана виновной и объявлена в розыск.

Судя по имеющимся данным, весь 2004 год резидентура ЦРУ в Узбекистане работала, не покладая рук, мобилизовав на подготовку переворота всех, кого только могла.

Примечательно, что в январе 2005 года секретарь посольства США в Ташкенте Майкл Гольдман начинает ходить по домам некоторых узбекских правозащитников и задавать им вопросы из специально подготовленного опросника:

«Как вы думаете, готово ли население республики выйти на массовые митинги протеста?»;

«Можно ли при организации таких митингов опираться на родственников людей, осужденных по религиозным мотивам?»;

«Что вы знаете об исламской группировке «Акрамия»? (той самой, которая была основным организатором беспорядков в Андижане – И.П.)»;

«Могут ли исламисты прийти к политической власти в Узбекистане после ухода Каримова с поста президента страны?»;

«Кого вы бы хотели видеть президентом Узбекистана после ухода Ислама Каримова?».

По итогам опроса, в середине февраля 2005 года Гольдман пишет в служебном отчете Дж. Пурнеллу, американскому послу в Узбекистане, что «социальная обстановка в стране благоприятна для реализации тактики и стратегии, отвечающим интересам США».

А в конце февраля 2005 года, на американо-узбекском совместном золотодобывающем предприятии «Зарафшан-Ньюмонт» появляется новый заместитель директора – Джозеф Пресел, бывший посол США в Узбекистане. Он же – кадровый сотрудник ЦРУ, бывший первый секретарь посольства США в СССР, выдворенный в 1977 году за шпионаж. Сразу же после приезда новый заместитель директора едет не в Навои, где расположено предприятие, а в Ферганскую долину.

А в конце апреля 2005 года государственный департамент «внезапно» распространяет предупреждение для американских граждан о том, что «Исламское движение Узбекистана» готовит террористические акты на территории республики». Потому им рекомендуется избегать посещений Ферганской долины. Стало ясно, что ждать неких «острых событий» оставалось совсем недолго, а место, где они произойдут, уже «назначено».

В Узбекистане, точнее, в Ферганской долине, главными «действующими лицами» должны были стать члены общины «Акрамия», которую создал член «Хизб-ут-Тахрир» Акрам Юлдашев, однофамилец своего единомышленника. Эта община настолько интересна, а ее история настолько поучительна и актуальна, что некоторые аспекты вполне заслуживают пристального внимания.

Акрам Юлдашев что называется, творчески переработал принципы других исламистских группировок, вполне логично рассудив, что созданные применительно к специфике арабских стран, они не отвечают среднеазиатским реалиям.

Он считал, что достижение истинной веры и возрождение халифата возможно лишь тогда, когда две эти идеи «займут место в сознании каждого, кто называет себя мусульманином». Но, поскольку подобное «просветление» всех и сразу невозможно, то его нужно добиваться «снизу» – в пределах одной общины, села, города. Собственно, как об этом писали уже цитировавшиеся аналитики Белого дома, «стремление к реформам в самих государствах региона… должно исходить от населения».

Деятельность своей группы в Ферганской долине Юлдашев, как описывает знаток этого вопроса, блестящий узбекский востоковед Бахтияр Бабаджанов, строил по следующей схеме:

1 этап – «Сирли» (скрытый, подпольный) – подбор и воспитание будущих членов группы в особых кружках, где они будут обучены «первородным исламским ритуалам». Успешно завершивший этот этап неофит проходит особый обряд с клятвой на коране в верности остальным братьям.

2 этап – «Моддий» (материальный) – создание материальной базы общины усилиями всех ее членов. Неофиты устраиваются на работу в общественные производственные организации, где уже работают «братья», либо в основанные членами группы малые промышленные или сельскохозяйственные предприятия. 1/5 дохода каждый член группы выделяет в общую казну.

3 этап – «Ма’навий» (духовный) – постоянные «духовные общения» со строго определенным кругом «братьев», которые проводят руководители ячеек.

4 этап – «Узвий майдон» (органическое вливание, соединение) – который предполагает фактическую легализацию общины во властных структурах путем вербовки чиновников и сотрудников правоохранительных органов, либо путем внедрения своих людей в местные органы власти.

И, наконец, 5 этап – «Охират» (завершающий, конечный) – на котором должна произойти «истинная исламизация» общества, означающая переход власти в отдельно взятом населенном пункте к лидерам «Акрамии».

По сути – перед нами структура и тактика действий исламистского подполья, адаптированная к современным условиям и для постсоветских государств. Замечу: весьма эффективная, поскольку на этих же принципах это подполье действует в Киргизии и в Западной Сибири.

Для масс здесь самое привлекательное – экономическая политика, наличие бизнеса, дающее возможность трудоустраивать «братьев» и их родственников, материально помогать «сочувствующим», заниматься благотворительностью, вербуя при этом новых сторонников. Ну и, естественно, покупать чиновников и правоохранительные органы.

Важно и то, что подобная тактика позволяет без особого труда направить недовольство масс в нужную, антиправительственную сторону. Коррупция и поборы с бизнеса, царящая социальная несправедливость и некомпетентность властей становятся проблемой целой общины одновременно с ростом популярности исламистских ячеек. Авторитет «добрых бизнесменов» у населения стал выше, чем у местных властей. И достаточно было властям попытаться ликвидировать общину и «подрезать» ее экономические корни, вполне, кстати, из корыстных побуждений, как город полыхнул массовыми выступлениями. Для дестабилизации потребовалось совсем немного – пара десятков боевиков и массовое недовольство властью.

В ночь с 12 на 13 мая 2005 года эта пара десятков боевиков сначала захватила воинскую часть, раздобыв оружие для последующей раздачи «широким массам». Затем, напав на тюрьму освободила около пятисот заключенных, из которых к боевикам присоединилось примерно сотня. Но и остальные свою лепту в дестабилизацию внесли.

Утром 13 мая по Андижану пронесся слух о приезде президента Ислама Каримова. Мол, он остановился на обкомовской даче, а днем собирается выступить на площади Бабура. К ней и начали стекаться люди со всех уголков города. Их поток увеличился после традиционной пятничной молитвы: часть верующих прямо из мечетей отправилась слушать выступление президента. Мировые средства массовой информации, представители которых присутствовали в городе, бешено транслировали свое, сугубо антиправительственное видение событий. Площадь Бабура становилась уже состоявшимся киевским «майданом» и будущим египетским «Тахриром», провоцируя масштабный взрыв по всему Узбекистану. А потом из толпы начались выстрелы в сторону сил правопорядка. На которые власти ответили пулеметным огнем…

«Андижан-2005» оставил массу вопросов. Почему узбекские «силовики» не предприняли никаких мер для того, чтобы нейтрализовать боевиков еще по дороге от тюрьмы до площади Бабура? Кто распускал слухи о якобы предстоящем выступлении президента? Почему власти ничего не сделали для того, чтобы эти слухи прекратить, выступить с официальными заявлениями по радио или телевидению?

На мой взгляд, есть только два логичных объяснения, которые, кстати, не исключают друг друга. Во-первых, часть чиновников и правоохранителей работала на заговорщиков. Во-вторых, местная власть откровенно растерялась и проявила полную некомпетентность.

Как бы то ни было, кровь пролилась, но, одновременно с этим, узбекское общество получило прививку от бунта. Страна стояла на краю пропасти – и сумела удержаться. Погибшие андижанцы собственной жизнью предостерегли регион от развала и массовой резни. В определенной мере Ислам Каримов повторил то, что в 1982 году сделал отец нынешнего сирийского президента Хафез Асад в городе Хама: расстрелял восстание «братьев-мусульман», «утихомирив» местных джихадистов почти на три десятка лет.

К сожалению, «вечных» побед не бывает. Ферганская долина как была, так и осталась «кипящим котлом» региона, который может рвануть в любой момент. Ни экономические, ни социальные проблемы после «Андижана-2005» никуда не исчезли, как не исчез и интерес исламистов и Запада к этому региону.

И России действительно стоило бы пристальнее взглянуть на историю тех событий. Больно уж эффективными и актуальными стали сегодня их уроки.

Специально для «Столетия»
Copyright © Stoletie.RU

http://www.stoletie.ru/rossiya_i_mir/uroki_andizhanskogo_rasstrela_974.htm

Uzbekistan: the “Andijan massacre”, 9/11, and the CIA failing the “Central Asian Spring”

More evidence of American plots.

The intelligence services of many countries have evidence of US/CIA past and present actions to overthrow their governments and destabilize their countries. It seems that an international tribunal to present this evidence would be a logical next step to expose and stop these egregious actions.

From Fort Russ

Stoletie

May 26, 2015
Igor Pankratenko
Stoletie
Translated by Kristina Rus

Ten years ago, Uzbekistan was rocked by tragic events, the true background of which is still debated.

“The Andijan massacre” – is a common name in the West of the tragedy which took place on May 13, 2005, in this Uzbek city. According to various estimates, the number of killed during demonstrations ranges from two hundred to five hundred people. About five hundred fled through neighboring Kyrgyzstan and then settled in the USA and Europe. About two hundred people involved in the events received prison terms.

There are many consequences of the Andijan events, among them – Western sanctions against Uzbekistan, a pivot of Tashkent (the capital) to Moscow and Beijing, the withdrawal of U.S. military base from the territory of the country. There are several versions of what happened, and between the official and, shall we say, the “human rights” interpretation of the tragedy, there are many inconsistencies and “black spots”.

But these are all, by and large, expected discrepancies for events of this scale, which does not change the essential fact: ten years ago the Islamist underground, with the support of the West, tried to stage a coup in Uzbekistan. Which, if successful, could launch a “democratic reformation of post-Soviet Central Asia” nearly six years before the “Arab spring”. The only difference would be that all the bloody “turbulence” would occur not somewhere in the Middle East, but in the immediate proximity to the Russian borders, in the “soft southern underbelly” of Moscow.

“Andijan-2005” – is the culmination of a multi-level game, in which the Uzbek authorities, the U.S. intelligence services, the Western “color revolution” technologists and the Islamists came to a head.

Each side had their own goal in this game, for which they were willing to generously pay with lives of civilians.

We need to study the lessons of those events very carefully. But they don’t like to remember these events in Uzbekistan. The West pretends that it had nothing to do with it. And Russia, as usual, has too many other worries, to pay particular attention to what happens there, in the East. In this article I have to leave many details in order to provide at least a general outline of what happened. And I have to start… with Afghanistan.

The terrorist attacks of “9/11” and the designation of George W. Bush of Afghan Taliban a target for “revenge” gave the neocons Cheney and Rumsfeld, relying on the CIA and the Pentagon, the opportunity to start implementing the project “For the New American Century”. In accordance with it, it was planned to place military bases and special units  in post-Soviet Central Asia. Officially – to prevent terrorist threats. In fact – to provide control over the region and creating the levers of control over the political situation, the individual elements of the “deep state”, the mechanisms of which have already been successfully operating in Europe, Turkey, Egypt and other countries.

Actually, this project was developed since 1992, but the American neocons carefully, step by step, started its implementation in the late nineties. Close contacts between the CIA and the Uzbek security services have been established in 1997-1998. Initially, their goal was to create a channel of operative communication with the “Northern Alliance” via Tashkent. And after the bombings at the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, the U.S. and Uzbek intelligence services began carrying out joint operations against the Taliban and their allies from the IMU – “The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan“.

And it is very important to remember: the agreement of 2001 on the establishment of the first and the largest on the territory of the post-Soviet countries American military base at Karshi-Khanabad – or K-2 – on the territory of Uzbekistan was preceded by a preliminary agreement of local intelligence services on cooperation with the CIA, which was signed in 1999. In the end, on September 11, 2001, the U.S. army special forces were already on the territory of Uzbekistan, at K-2. After another ten days, two weeks before the formal military agreement between the U.S. army and the Uzbek military, the CIA had already sent their staff to the base at Karshi-Khanabad.

And setting the Taliban aside, the primary task of the CIA in Uzbekistan was digging in on the territory of the country. Creating the elements of “deep state” and its combat units, whose role was to be played by the militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

 After all, decisions adopted in the eighties by the CIA Director William Casey about covert operations in Afghanistan were not only about this country. Their development is not so much credited to Langley bureaucrats, but to the Director of Saudi Intelligence – first Kamal Adam, and then Prince Turki bin Faisal. Among these decisions we must focus on two.

First, a creation of a kind of “Foreign Legion”, which was tasked with assisting the Afghan Mujahideen. We are talking about network support, which we know today under the name of “Al-Qaeda”. The second – active agent penetration into the territory of Soviet Central Asia, recruitment “in reserve” of the citizens of the republics of this region.

The backbone of IMU initially consisted of these agents, and it relied on the organizational and financial opportunities created by the CIA and Saudis. Uzbek Islamists did not lack financial resources. Moreover, monetary assistance came not only from Afghanistan. It is known that a citizen of Saudi Arabia of Uyghur nationality, Muhammad Amin Turkistoni presented in 1999 one of the leaders of the Uzbek Islamic radicals, Tahir Yuldashev, with 260 thousand dollars to purchase weapons, half of which, in accordance with the requirements of Turkistoni, was transferred to Uyghur separatists in China [Uyghur region of China is the gateway to the New Silk Road project, bringing Central Asian states into Chinese-Russian sphere of influence – KR]

And what’s more interesting: the increasing American presence in Uzbekistan strangely fit with the increasing activity of IMU. During this period, from mid 2001 to 2005, the number of IMU guerrillas was about 10 thousand people, the militants had millions of American dollars in their accounts and the latest weapons in the arsenals. In Afghanistan, which was actively “sweeped” during this period by the Americans, there were several training camps for the militants, and these “training courses” miraculously never fell under aviation bombardment of the “International security assistance force”.

On the Afghan territory IMU operated on a par with the Taliban, in some military situations, the leaders of this movement demonstrated their independence and superiority. In short, the formation of an “invasion force” into Uzbekistan was in full swing, which were to play the role of the detonator of destabilization with subsequent “democratic reformatting”. The leader of the Uzbek Islamists Tahir Yuldashev announced about his plans not somewhere from a cave, as his senior colleague Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with “Radio Liberty” (Radio Svoboda): “We know our goal, this goal is to overthrow the existing system in Uzbekistan, to free about a hundred thousand of our brothers and sisters from behind bars – Muslims of Uzbekistan, and create in Uzbekistan a regime in which people could freely practice their faith”.

Even to an outside observer, by 2003 it became clear that Washington was playing a double game in the country, implementing its own plan for transition of power in Tashkent: from Islam Karimov to American candidates.

Nothing strange about it at all. Planners in the White House have already formulated a strategy of Washington in the region, among its elements the former Director of the Department of Eurasian relations in the Security Council, Rosemary Foresythe emphasized the following tasks in the beginning of the “zero” years:
  • Contribute to the weakening of the influence of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Russia;
  •  To carry out economic penetration of the U.S. in order to strengthen the American presence in the region;
  • To involve the Central Asian states in market relations for maximum benefit from unequal exchange of finished goods for commodities;
  •  To carry out the linking of economic plans with the regional policy environment, providing “containment” of Iran and support of Turkey and Saudi Arabia as agents of Western interests among the population.

At the same time the White House formulated requirements for the Central Asian political elite: “a thorough involvement of the West is a necessary condition for changing the trajectories of development of Central Asian states. But this participation is not enough in itself. The outside world can provide direct investment, technical assistance, loans and grants, but it takes commitment to reforms in the countries of the region, as we saw in Kyrgyzstan. It should come from the population willing to endure the turmoil associated with political and economic changes. And, more importantly, it must come from the leaders willing to abide by the terms of staying in power, as defined by the Constitution, to hold free and fair elections – even if the polls show that they will lose, and to leave their post in case of defeat”.

Not one of the leaders of post-Soviet States of Central Asia met the asserted demands, the political culture of post-Soviet elites was completely different.

Islam Karimov absolutely did not intend to “reformat” Uzbekistan to the standards of “American democracy”, which in the East always turned into an even worse dictatorship, loss of autonomy and the transition of natural resources under foreign control.

On the initiative of the Uzbek side cooperation was phased out, followed by limitations in activities of CIA operatives in the country and other unpleasant things for Washington. Thus by the end of 2003, Islam Karimov was blacklisted by the American side as “unpromising” for further cooperation.

At the official level it was expressed, first of all, in curtailing economic cooperation, Tashkent was left without the standard Western “carrot” for post-Soviet States, whether it was Russia, Kyrgyzstan, or Uzbekistan: investment, the same “sweets”, which messed with the heads of the new rulers, who came to the rubble of the USSR. Before the official visit to the United States in 2002, Islam Karimov exuded optimism: “This country has a great investment potential, – he said. – Our close ties with the United States will help us in conducting our economic reforms.”

A few years later, he openly said in a conversation with Vladimir Putin: “We thought we were welcomed on the international arena with open arms. Thought in vain.”

There were openly demonstrative signals from the West. The leadership of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – previously providing credit to Tashkent – demanded Karimov to condemn the violence in places of detention, and to do it publicly. Such a statement, according to the organizers, was to demonstrate the readiness of the Uzbek leadership for liberal reforms. When the President refused the bankers, the Bank’s activities in the country were curtailed.

Well, and the small things. In 2003, the court in New Jersey issued a verdict in which the parental rights to two children of Karimov’s daughter, Gulnara, were given to her husband, American, Mansour Maksudi. And she, who before the divorce took her children home, was found guilty and declared wanted.

Based on available data, all through 2004 CIA resident agents in Uzbekistan worked diligently, mobilizing everyone they could for the preparation of the coup.

It is noteworthy that in January 2005, the Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Michael Goldman, visited homes of some Uzbek human rights defenders and asked them questions from a specially prepared questionnaire:

  • “Do you think the population of the Republic is ready to come out to mass protests?”
  • “Could we rely on relatives of people convicted on religious grounds in the organization of such rallies?”
  • “What do you know about the Islamic group “Akramia”? [the one which was the primary organizer of the riots in Andijan – I. P.]”
  • “Can Islamists come to political power in Uzbekistan after the exit of Karimov from the post of President of the country?”
  • “Who would you like to see as the President of Uzbekistan after the departure of Karimov?”.

According to the results of the survey, in mid-February 2005 Goldman writes in his official report to J. Purnell, the American Ambassador in Uzbekistan, that “the social situation in the country is favorable for the implementation of tactics and strategy that meets the interests of the United States”.

And at the end of February 2005, at the U.S.-Uzbek gold mining joint venture Zarafshan-Newmont there was a new Deputy Director – Joseph Presel, former U.S. Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He is also a career CIA officer, former first Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in the Soviet Union, expelled in 1977 for espionage. Immediately after the arrival the new Deputy Director travels not to Navoi, where the enterprise is located, but to the Fergana valley.

And at the end of April 2005, the State Department “suddenly” disseminates the warning to American citizens that “The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the Republic”. Therefore they are encouraged to avoid visits to the Fergana valley. It became clear that the countdown to “acute events” is on, and the place for action has already been chosen.

In Uzbekistan, more precisely, in the Fergana valley, the main “actors” were the members of the “Akramia” community, which was created by a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Akram Yuldashev, a namesake of his associate. This community is so interesting, and its story is so instructive and relevant, that some aspects deserve close attention.

Akram Yuldashev creatively reworked the principles of other Islamist groups, logically reasoning that created according to the specifics of Arab countries, they don’t answer to the Central Asian realities.

He believed that the attainment of true faith and the revival of the Caliphate is possible only when these two ideas “will take place in the consciousness of everyone who calls himself a Muslim.” But since such “enlightenment” of all at once is impossible, then it needs to be achieved “from below” within one community, village, city. Actually, as wrote the already quoted analysts of the White House, “the pursuit of reforms in the countries of the region… must come from the population.”

Yuldashev organized the operations of his group in the Fergana valley, as described by the expert on this issue, brilliant Uzbek orientalist Bakhtiyar Babadzhanov, according to the following scheme:

Stage 1: “Sirli” (hidden, underground) – the selection and education of future members of the group in special study groups, where they will be trained in “original Islamic rituals”. Successfully completing this stage, the neophyte undergoes a special ceremony with an oath of allegiance to the other brothers on the Quran.

Stage 2: “Moddii” (material) – creation of the material resource base of the community with efforts of all of its members. Neophytes get a job in public production organizations, where “brothers” are already employed or at small industrial or agricultural enterprises founded by members of the group. 1/5 of the income is allocated to the common treasury by each group member.

Stage 3: “Ma’ Naviy” (spiritual) – constant “spiritual communication” with strictly defined circle of “brothers”, which are held by the leaders of the cells.

Stage 4: “Usvy Maidon” (organic infusion, connection) – which involves the actual legalization of the community in the structures of power by recruiting officials and law enforcement, or by implanting their own people in local authorities.

And, finally, stage 5: “Okhirat” (final, ultimate) – when a “true Islamization” of society must occur, meaning the transition of power in a particular locality to the leaders of the “Akramia”.

In fact – we have before us the structure and tactics of the Islamist underground, adapted to modern conditions and for the post-Soviet States. Note: very effective, because on the same principles this underground acts in Kyrgyzstan and in Western Siberia.

For the masses the most attractive aspect – economic policy, business opportunity to employ the “brothers” and their relatives, to financially help the “sympathizers”, charity, while recruiting new supporters. And, of course, to recruit officials and law enforcement agents.

It is also important that such tactics can easily direct the discontent of the masses in the right, anti-government direction. Corruption and extortion from businesses, prevailing social injustice and incompetence of the authorities is a problem of the whole community simultaneously with the growing popularity of Islamist cells. The credibility of “good businessmen” surpassed that of local authorities among the population. And it was enough for the authorities to try to eliminate a local community and cut down its economic roots, incidentally, for profit motives, as the city engulfed in mass protests. It took very little to destabilize – a couple dozen fighters and mass discontent with the authorities.

On the night of May 12 to 13, 2005, these two dozen militants first seized a military base, procuring weapons for distribution to “the masses”. Then, attacking a jail released about five hundred prisoners, of which the militants were joined by about a hundred. But the rest made their contribution to destabilization.

On the morning of May 13 a rumor was started in Adijan about the arrival of President Islam Karimov. Supposedly, he stayed at the summer house of the regional authorities, and was going to appear on Babur square during the day. People from all corners of the city started gathering there. Their flow increased after the traditional Friday prayer: some of believers went to hear the President’s speech right from the mosques [sounds familiar? – KR]. The global mass media, representatives of which were present in the city, hysterically aired their own purely anti-government view of events. The Babur square turned into a Kiev “Maidan” and the future “Tahrir” in Egypt, causing a massive explosion throughout Uzbekistan. And then the crowd started firing at the law enforcement. To which the authorities responded with machine-gun fire…

“Andijan-2005 has left a lot of questions. Why the Uzbek “security forces” did not take any measures in order to neutralize the gunmen on the way from prison to the Babur square? Who’s spread the rumors about the upcoming speech of the President? Why the authorities did nothing to stop these rumors, to make formal statements on radio or television?

In my opinion, there are only two logical explanations, which, incidentally, are not mutually exclusive. First, some officials and law enforcement officers worked for the conspirators [just like in Kiev – KR]. Secondly, the local authorities were completely frazzled and showed total incompetence.

No matter what, blood was spilled, but, at the same time, Uzbek society was vaccinated against rebellion. The country was on the brink of an abyss – and managed to hold on. The dead Andijan residents with their own lives had saved the region from collapse and mass slaughter. To some extent, Islam Karimov repetead what, in 1982, did the father of the current Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the town of Hama: fired at the rebellion of the “Muslim brotherhood”, pacifying the local jihadists for nearly three decades.

Unfortunately, there are no “eternal” victories. The Fergana valley has remained a “boiling cauldron” of the region which could blow any moment. Neither economic nor social problems after “Andijan-2005” had disappeared, nor the interest of the Islamists and the West to this region.

And Russia should really take a closer look at the history of those events. Their lessons had become painfully effective and relevant today.

KR: I can only imagine how the Western authorities would worry about the human rights of hundreds of prisoners who just escaped and ran downtown to shoot at some cops and take over the city after we just saw their reaction at a looting of a CVS!

Expert: Poland to stop being Ukraine’s defender in Europe under new president elect

From Voice of Sevastopol, May 26, 2015

KIEV, May 25 /TASS/. The election of Andrzej Duda as Poland’s new president will strengthen an ideological conflict between Warsaw and Kiev and will change Poland’s role of being Ukraine’s advocate in Europe, Ruslan Bortnik, director of the Ukrainian Institute of Policy Analysis and Management, told TASS on Monday.

“An ideological rift between Ukraine and Poland may increase. That may seriously undermine Poland’s role of Ukraine’s advocate in Europe,” Bortnik said explaining that Polish new President Elect Andrzej Duda is holding a tougher stance against idealization of members of right radical movements in Ukraine. “He has said many times that the recognition of members of the Ukraine Insurgent Army as fighters for Ukraine’s independence is the critical point for a normal Ukrainian-Polish dialogue and called for remembering hundreds of thousands of Polish victims of the massacres in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during WWII,” the Ukrainian expert said.

He predicts that Poland’s relations with Ukraine and the rest of Europe will be cooler under Duda because the new president elect is likely to focus more on the internal agenda, including an increase of social standards for the Poles, rather than foreign policy.

“Poland’s position in the Ukraine crisis may become less conspicuous and straightforward because the task of meeting social obligations may push Duda to cooperation, possibly with Russia, despite all the rhetoric with other participants in the process,” Bortnik stressed. According to him, Europe is unlikely to increase social standards for the Poles and Poland will have search for an external financial resource.

“Anyway, a light crisis is expected in Poland’s relations with the European Union and Ukraine: with the European Union – over money and with Ukraine – over ideology,” Bortnik went on to say.

Andrzej Duda won the second round of presidential elections in Poland on May 24. According to preliminary vote count, the opposition candidate Duda was 4% ahead of his chief rival – incumbent Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski who has already conceded his defeat. The Polish Central Electoral Committee hopes to announce the official results either on Monday evening or Tuesday morning. Duda will official take office on August 6, the day when Komorowski’s presidential term officially expires.

The Volhynia massacre is an ethnic political conflict accompanied by mass extermination by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army of ethnic Poles, predominantly civilians, and to a minor extent civilians of other nationalities, including Ukrainians, in the regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in 1943.

http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/analytics/5438-expert-poland-to-stop-being-ukraines-defender-in-europe-under-new-president-elect.html

Komorowski supported sanctions, lost election

From Fort Russ

May 24, 2015
Supported Sanctions–Lost Election
By Rujournalist
Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Bronislaw Komorowski admitted defeat in the second round of Poland’s presidential elections. We wave and smile. The country’s next president will become the conservative Andrzej Duda.

What’s symptomatic is that Komorowski supported sanctions and underestimated the consequences of the retaliatory embargo and thus lost the election. Now he can eat an apple or two.

The first head has rolled, Europe’s population absolutely does not need an economic war with Russia.

Something tells me Gribauskaite and her Russophobia will be the next to go eat cheese.

J.Hawk’s Comment:This is a stunner and, frankly, a minor political earthquake for all of EU. Even in January Komorowski seemed unbeatable. A Polish political pundit famously said that to lose the election, “Komorowski would need to run over a pregnant Catholic nun while drunk.” Well, close enough! But it’s not just the sanctions and apples. Komorowski can also thank his Kiev Bandera-worshipping “partners and friends” for the untimely demise of his political career. The tide of the Polish public opinion turned very sharply against Ukraine in the last few months (“you can’t fool all the people all the time”), and Komorowski paid the price…

As to Duda, he is as Russophobic as his predecessor, if not more so (he believes, for example, that Putin had the Polish president Kaczynski murdered by staging a plane crash in Smolensk in 2010…), but at the same time he is a Euroskeptic similar Hungary’s Viktor Orban and he enjoys extensive support by Poland’s Catholic Church which is, well, you can imagine. But Russophobia and Euroskepticism can’t happily coexist, not in the Polish state, at any rate, so very soon Duda will have to make a choice. And ultimately Duda’s politics are actually closer to Putin’s (when it comes to the fundamental beliefs concerning sovereignty, national security, and basic human values) than to EU’s.

Russian Defense source: US intelligence developed a plan on liquidation of Transnistria

From Fort Russ

May 25, 2015
Vladimir Mukhin for Rusvesna
Translated by Kristina Rus

Moscow is preparing for active defense in Transnistria

A source in the Russian Defense Ministry announced about the existence of a military plan of liquidation of Transnistria, developed by U.S. intelligence with participation of military agencies of Ukraine, Moldova and Romania.

The Russian Defense Ministry is concerned about the possibility of abrupt destabilization of the conflict in the Transnistrian Moldovan Republic (PMR) and is preparing for the most adverse scenarios. With this goal the other day the Operational Group of Russian troops (OGRV), stationed in the Republic, held exercises for the protection of key military facilities.

According to the press service of the Western military district, which is controlled by OGRV, on Friday more than 100 soldiers of the group were raised by an alarm. After a 150-kilometer march to military warehouses in the village of Kolbasna, they entered into a training battle with the imaginary terrorists, who were trying to get hold of weapons and ammunition.

The military emphasized that OGRV fighters operated in conditions closest to real life battle. The personnel of the anti-terrorist units accomplished their tasks successfully: “During the exercises on elimination of supposed terrorists, special attention was paid to improving the coherence of operations of soldiers in the battle on open terrain as part of a unit and small tactical groups (pairs and triples)”.

Similar scenarios are now practiced not only by the military personnel of OGRV, but also the Russian peacekeepers stationed in the conflict zone.

Such increased activity of Russian troops in Transnistria the source of “NG” in the Defense Ministry explained not only by the plans of the summer training period, but real threats that arise now in the conflict zone.

In particular, he told “NG”, that he possesses information about the existence of a military plan on liquidation of Transnistria. It was allegedly developed by the US intelligence services with participation of the military agencies of Ukraine, Moldova and Romania.

A part of the plan was Kiev’s decision adopted last week to denounce the agreement with Russia on transit through Ukrainian territory of the Russian military and their cargoes to Transnistria.

In addition, according to the source of “NG”, in the near future Ukrainian and Romanian-Moldovan militants plan to conduct sabotage and terrorist operations aimed at capturing weapons’ warehouses in PMR, which are now guarded by Russian soldiers.

At the same time on the territory on the left bank of the Dniester river large-scale provocations with murders among civilian population will begin, aimed at discrediting our peacekeepers.

These circumstances will become an excuse for the official withdrawal of Chisinau from the peacekeeping process. Moldovan authorities will seek help from the European Union and NATO. And by this time, apparently, a replacement of the Russian blue helmets will be prepared in the form of a Moldovan-Romanian peacekeeping battalion.

The Minister of Defense of Moldova, Viorel Cibotaru, officially announced about the formation of such a unit on May 23. After his meeting with Romanian counterpart Mircea Dusa it was announced that the battalion in the future will include the military personnel of Ukraine and Poland.

Lieutenant-General Yuri Netkachev, who in 1992 was the commander of the 14th army stationed in Transnistria, also does not rule out a military solution to the situation on the Dniester.

“It hurts the geopolitical interests of Moscow, and I am sure that the Russian leadership will do everything possible to defend their position in this region, and will not allow the escalation of the conflict”, — the expert believes.

Netkachev remembers that Chisinau in the period when he commanded the 14th army, with the support of Romanian volunteers and mercenaries already tried to conquer PMR by force.

“Did not work then and will not work now, despite the fact that Ukraine is trying to cut off the oxygen from our troops there,” — said Netkachev.

He agreed with the opinion of the coordinator of the office of inspector general of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, Army General, Yuri Yakubov, who doesn’t rule out the opportunity of supplying our peacekeepers by air, using military transport aircraft under the Ukrainian blockade.

“Of course, there is a very big problem that our planes will have to fly over Ukrainian territory. Most likely it will be in the region of Odessa. From the Black sea coast to the border with PMR there is less than 100 kilometers. It was reported that the Ukrainian military had deployed anti-aircraft missile systems S-300 there. But it seems to me that the Ukrainian air defense will unlikely decide to bring down our military planes flying to Tiraspol”, — said the expert.

While the situation around Transnistria is deteriorating, Romania and the U.S. began military exercises near the borders with the Odessa region of Ukraine. For these purposes a missile destroyer of naval forces of the United States, “Ross” arrived to the Black sea on May 23.

молдавия, приднестровье, минобороны, миротворцы, антитеррор, румыния, сша, военные маневры

The press release of the 6th US fleet declared that the presence of “Ross” in the region is necessary for “providing security” and strengthening “cooperation in the Black Sea” for “peace and prosperity in the region.”

“Ross” is equipped with “Aegis” missile defense system, and the main weapons of the destroyer are the Tomahawk cruise missiles.