A “dirty bomb” false flag imminent?

From Fort Russ

August 4th, 2015

Fort Russ – Joaquin Flores – (a special thanks to Kevin Deikoff for sending us The Times piece
The Times.co,uk used this photo in their ‘Rebels to make dirty bomb’ piece, though this photo is from 10-20-14 when the nearly the opposite actually occurred: Kiev Junta forces bombed a chemical facility in Donetsk
Let’s look at two significant news pieces, the first that Poroshenko called an emergency session of the war council today, and three days ago that western press starting to create buzz about Novorossiyan ‘rebels’ creating a ‘dirty bomb’.  It is difficult not to want to put these together and concede the possibility that something is in the works.
There are good reasons for this, there is not only a precedent for these in this conflict, but they arose at similar times.  The last few times that the US tried this, with the downing of MH-17 and then the ‘shelling of Mariupol’ false flag, the US felt unable gain the upper hand either through regular proxy combat or its policy of terrorism upon civilians.
While nothing is guaranteed to happen, this definitely means we should be on the look out for such an event in the very near future.

Oleg Tsarev of the DPR also expressed similar concerns, in a piece which we translated for Fort Russ – that can be read here: http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-did-times-publish-article-about.html

Our role as public servants, citizen media, is to inoculate mass publics against any attempt to pin a future ‘chemical attack’ on the Novorossiyan armies.  Even if nothing comes of it this time, it doesn’t rule out that they had something in the works.  Many analysts have indicated that publicizing and ‘calling out’ such false flag attempts in their early stages can actually hedge the US Empire’s bets that they can pull it off.
Of course, the endemically Russophobic and pro-imperialist Times.co.uk  scribbles their piece for good reason; they have a job to do, which is creating near-term expectation that the ‘Ruskies’ are back to their old evil tricks, and are planning something soon.
But as we’ve seen before, the photo used to generate clicks and reads, and to give the veil of ‘truth’ as in sort of suggesting ‘photographic evidence’, is not what they are writing about.  Just as in the conflicts in Syria and elsewhere, it depicts the effects of something the US backed side has done.
We reverse searched this image through Google, and found that it does not depict anything the ‘Russians did’, but in fact is a photo from October 20th, 2014, of a chemical plant in Donetsk that was shelled by the UAF.  Fancy that.

Also, Kevin Deikoff notes: “Max Tucker, writer of this piece, is a western intelligence asset. He speaks Russian and studied history for 3 years at the University of Bristol(?). “Articles” by him started appearing in 2013 as he was supposedly working for 3.5yrs exposing human rights abuses in Ukraine and the South Caucasus as Amnesty International’s expert in the region. Suddenly, he appears as news editor for the Kiev Post in December 2014. Now he puts together ‘pieces’ for the Times, News Week, and others. http://ukrcanco.org/maxim-tucker-putin-doesn-t-respond…/ “

“‘Max Tucker’ has recently added ‘media strategist’ to his journalist description.’Max Tucker’ doesn’t seem to have much of a history. Maxim Shkolnik, of Tucker, Georgia, was arrested for trafficking cocaine 01-09-2007 – not that these people are one and the same.”

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-dirty-bomb-false-flag-imminent.html

U.S. instructors are in Ukraine to learn how to fight Russia

From Fort Russ

(Photo: Manu Brabo/AFP via Getty)
 
Kristina Rus: 
 
What advantage can the 10 times bigger defense budget buy for the US army over Russia? 
 
“We have great signals intelligence, and we can listen all day long, but we can’t shut them down one-tenth to the degree they can us

Joaquin Flores:  

We saw this article and thought our readers would find it interesting.  While reinforcing the western narrative of intimate Russian involvement, it also talks about a technology gap that the US seems to be suffering in the area of jamming. This may or may not be true: during the Cold War the US often would inflate Russian military prowess in order to justify its own increased expenditures.  These resulted in windfall profits for the military industrial complex.  At the same time, the claim in itself seems possibly true.  The US has not had to focus on developing these technologies, as it had specifically targeted countries that were technologically deficient.  Now that the US is against a more formidable opponent, whether directly or through proxies, it seems to make sense that its own short-comings would be pronounced more now than at any point in the recent past.


Electronic Warfare: What US Army Can Learn From Ukraine
 
 
 

WASHINGTON — The US military has for weeks been training Ukrainian forces in US tactics, but the commander of US Army Europe says Ukrainian forces, who are fighting Russian-backed separatists, have much to teach their US trainers.

Ukrainian forces have grappled with formidable Russian electronic warfare capabilities that analysts say would prove withering even to the US ground forces. The US Army has also jammed insurgent communications from the air and ground on a limited basis, and it is developing a powerful arsenal of jamming systems, but these are not expected until 2023.

“Our soldiers are doing the training with the Ukrainians and we’ve learned a lot from the Ukrainians,” said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges. “A third of the [Ukrainian] soldiers have served in the … combat zone, and no Americans have been under Russian artillery or rocket fire, or significant Russian electronic warfare, jamming or collecting — and these Ukrainians have. It’s interesting to hear what they have learned.”

Hodges acknowledged that US troops are learning from Ukrainians about Russia’s jamming capability, its ranges, types and the ways it has been employed. He has previously described the quality and sophistication of Russian electronic warfare as “eye-watering.”

Russia maintains an ability to destroy command-and-control networks by jamming radio communications, radars and GPS signals, according to Laurie Buckhout, former chief of the US Army’s electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group. In contrast with the US, Russia has large units dedicated to electronic warfare, known as EW, which it dedicates to ground electronic attack, jamming communications, radar and command-and-control nets.

Though Ukrainian troops lack the materiel to protect themselves from this form of attack, the Ukrainian military’s institutional knowledge as a former Soviet republic will help it understand how Russia fights, and its troops will have trained to operate while being jammed, Buckhout said. That’s something US ground forces can learn.

“Our biggest problem is we have not fought in a comms-degraded environment for decades, so we don’t know how to do it,” Buckhout said. “We lack not only tactics, techniques and procedures but the training to fight in a comms-degraded environment.”

It’s not hard to see why EW is an attractive option for Russia while the eyes of the world are on it. Not only is it highly effective, but as a non-kinetic form of attack, it is harder to trace and less likely to be viewed as overt aggression, and as such, less likely to incite the ire of the international community, Buckhout said.

In a fight, Russia’s forces can hinder a target’s ability to respond to, say, an artillery attack, allowing them to fire on an enemy with impunity. Ukrainian forces would be unable to coordinate a defense against incoming rockets and missiles, or release counter battery fire.

“If your radars don’t see incoming fire, you can’t coordinate counterfire,” Buckhout said.

The US, Buckhout said, lacks a significant electronic attack capability.

“We have great signals intelligence, and we can listen all day long, but we can’t shut them down one-tenth to the degree they can us,” she said. “We are very unprotected from their attacks on our network.”

Multifunctional EW

Col. Jeffrey Church, the Army’s electronic warfare division chief, acknowledged that since the Cold War, adversaries have continued to modernize their EW capabilities, while the Army began reinvesting its capabilities for Iraq and Afghanistan. Church called the fielding of Army electronic warfare equipment the “No. 1 priority” of his job.

“The  Army must have electronic warfare capabilities that could be used to dominate key terrain on the electromagnetic spectrum against any adversary,” Church said.

A developing Army program, Multifunctional Electronic Warfare (MFEW), is intended to provide an offensive electronic attack capability, able to jam cell phone, satellite and GPS signals, said Lt. Col. Gregory Griffin, chief of the Electronic Warfare Division’s programs and requirements branch. However, the focus had been until recent years on “defensive electronic attack,” namely counter-radio-controlled-IED devices that create bubbles of protective jamming around vehicles and people, and signals collection for intelligence purposes.

The Army has demonstrated some ability to counter enemy communications, not under formal acquisitions programs but as quick-reaction capabilities. In Afghanistan, the Army used a handful of C-12 aircraft equipped with Communications, Electronic Attack, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CEASAR) jamming pods to jam insurgent push-to-talk radios, and two fixed-site systems — Ground Auto Targeting Observation/Reactive (GATOR) jammer and Duke V2 EA — to jam radios and repeater towers.

On an ad hoc basis, troops in Afghanistan used GATOR — conceived to protect forward operating bases — to suppress repeater towers while on patrol or training Afghan forces, providing themselves the freedom to maneuver while denying communications to potential enemies, Griffin said.

“It was unlimited capability, limited by the number of systems,” Griffin said. “Honestly, we just did not have enough to support the demand that was in the Army.”

The Army’s electronic warfare cadre, which totals 813 officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers,  has wielded more theory than hardware, except when deployed. In garrison, it was common for these troops to be assigned other jobs, leading to the joke that EW stands for “extra worker” — though this is changing as the Army ramps up its electronic warfare materiel strategy, Griffin said.

MFEW, due to reach initial operating capability in 2023 and full operating capability in 2027, is intended to offer a suite of powerful, sophisticated sensors and jammers for in the air, on ground vehicles and in fixed locations. The Army is due to consider a capability design document for the “air large” capability, akin to Caesar, potentially for a C-12 or a MQ-8 Fire Scout drone. Last year it tested the Networked Electronic Warfare Remotely Operated (NERO), a jamming pod attached to the Gray Eagle drone.

The Defense Department in March set up a panel to address its electronic warfare shortfalls, which, Griffin said, has generated discussion about accelerating the timeline for MFEW.

‘Future of War Is in the Ukraine’

Forces with US Army Europe have for the last 10 weeks been training three battalions of Ukraine Ministry of the Interior troops, known as Ukraine’s national guard. The second cycle of that training was paused so that troops could participate in a combined multinational exercise, underway through early August, and it will resume and conclude with the third battalion in August.

The Ukrainian military — which is in the midst of a reform and modernization effort even as it wars with Russia — has shown interest in creating a noncommissioned officer corps modeled after that of the US, Hodges said. Ukrainian military officials charged with reform efforts visited Washington in recent weeks and, in a press conference, acknowledged the challenges of corruption and shoddy soldier equipment, which they sought to correct.

But Konstiantyn Liesnik, an adviser to the Defense Ministry’s reform office and head of its working group for logistics and procurement, noted the US military’s experience in recent years has concerned insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a powerful, organized and well-equipped adversary like Russia.

The future of war is in the Ukraine, and I think in this case our experience is very important to US personnel how war should be in this century and next century,” Liesnik said.

Beyond electronic warfare, Russian anti-aircraft rockets have prevented Ukrainian forces from using their airplanes, and it has had to consider personal armor that can protect against artillery.

Ukrainian forces interacting with US soldiers have spoken frankly about their difficulties, something Hodges said he saw firsthand when the chief of the Ukrainian Army, at an event attended by senior leaders from other countries, discussed with a group of officers  his force’s battlefield experiences and shortcomings.

“I have been very impressed with the earnestness of the Ukrainian military to fix their shortcomings and improve their capabilities,” Hodges said. “It was one of the most professional things I have ever seen of any army, and they were very candid: We were not prepared to do this, and here’s how we adapted.”

Ukrainian troops have not only had to adapt to Russian electronic warfare, but its artillery and unmanned aerial systems. The Ukrainian Army official, Hodges said, also detailed how unprepared Ukrainian troops have been for the number of casualties and their treatment.

The US provided Ukraine with lightweight counter-mortar radars in November 2014, which Hodges said its troops have “used in ways we have not used it ourselves, and made it more effective than we thought was possible.” These troops, he said, would be savvy enough to operate a more advanced radar with a wider range — which the Pentagon is reportedly in talks to send.

An official at the US State Department said the administration believes there is no military resolution to this crisis, but Ukraine has the right to defend itself. To that end, it announced a $75 million Defense Department aid package in March that includes 30 armored Humvees, 200 other Humvees, radios and unarmed surveillance drones, night-vision devices and medical supplies.

The 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, based in Vicenza, Italy, had been training Ukrainian troops in western Ukraine, in battlefield medicine, casualty evacuation, and tactical tasks such as anti-roadside bomb techniques and basic battlefield movement.

Saber Guardian, a command post exercise which rotates between Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria, this year was linked to Rapid Trident, an annual field training exercise held in Ukraine, according to the US Army. The combined exercise, which includes roughly 1,800 soldiers from 18 different nations, is meant to focus on defensive operations to ensure a safe and secure environment within the operating environment.

This year’s scenario consists of a host nation that comes under attack. The nation is able to defend itself at great cost. A multinational force is sent to assist the host nation and the challenge is to bring together and train a multinational brigade, which would then be sent to assist the host nation in its defense.

 

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/08/us-instructors-are-in-ukraine-to-learn.html

Доклад посла СССР в Японии о состоянии Хиросимы и Нагасаки после атомных бомбардировок

hirosima

К 70-летию атомных бомбардировок Хиросимы и Нагасаки Российское историческое общество впервые публикует предоставленный Архивом внешней политики России доклад посла СССР в Японии о состоянии этих городов спустя месяц после атаки.

Доклад посла СССР в Японии и Пояснительная записка к докладу. Архив внешней политики РФ, ф.06, оп.8, п.7, д.96

http://rushistory.org/putevoditel/archives/doklad-posla-sssr-v-yaponii-o-sostoyanii-khirosimy-i-nagasaki-posle-atomnykh-bombardirovok.html

Russia declassifies report on the aftermath of the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; U.S. said Japanese exaggerated effects of nuclear bomb.[audio]

From Fort Russ

August 5, 2015
Kristina Rus
 
Russian Historical Society has published a report of the Soviet ambassador to Japan on the aftermath of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the Archive of Foreign Policy of Russia in time for the 70-th anniversary of the attacks. The report was recorded a month after the attacks.

The following is an audio reading of highlights of the report, read by journalist Maurice Herman:

https://youtu.be/I-X87v25rhI

The following are the highlights of the report:

The train terminal and the city of Hiroshima were destroyed so much that there was no shelter to hide from the rain.
The city was a scorched plain with 15-20 cement buildings left standing.
Several dozen thousand people huddled in the dugouts on the outskirts of the city.
People who came to help the victims during the first 5-10 days died.
A month after the bombing grass began to grow and new leaves appeared on the burned trees.
Glass windows in the cement building of police department, which was left standing, blew out inward. The ceiling was bulging upwards.
The zone of impact was 6-8 kilometers, where all the buildings were damaged.
At 5-6 kilometers mostly roofs were damaged.
Some areas were not affected by the rays, suggesting that the energy was expelled unequally by bursts. Some people who where close to the injured did not receive any burns. This pertains to sections significantly removed from the impact.

Everything alive was destroyed in the radius of one kilometer.

The sound and the flash were heard and seen 50 kilometers away.

On person reported seeing a flash and feeling a touch of a warm stream on his cheek and a needle pinch.

Many people only had injuries from shattered glass.

Burns were mainly on the face, arms and legs.

A doctor reported seeing three bombs dropped on parachutes, two of which did not explode and were collected by the military. The doctor experienced diarrhea after drinking the water. Other rescuers got sick after 36 hours. The doctor said that in those affected the white blood cell count reduced from 8000 per cubic centimeter to 3,000, 1,000 and even 300, which causes bleeding from nose, throat, eyes, and from the uterus in females. The injured die after 3-4 days.

The injured, who are evacuated heal faster. Those who drank or rinsed with water in the impact area died thereafter.

After a month it was considered safe to stay in the impact zone, however it was still not conclusive.

According to the doctor, rubber clothing offered protection against uranium, as well as any material which is a conductor of electricity.

A girl who visited the area a few days after the blast got sick in 1-2 weeks and died 3 days after.

Nagasaki is divided into two sections by a mountain. The section sheltered from the blast by a mountain had much less destruction.

Japanese driver in Nagasaki said no rescue work was done on the day of the bombing, because the city was engulfed in fire.

Nagasaki bomb was dropped over a university hospital in Urakami district (near a Mitsubishi plant), all the patients and the staff of the hospital died.

The driver said, some children who were up on the trees [playing?] survived, but those on the ground died.

Most people in Hiroshima said the bomb was dropped on a parachute and detonated 500-600 feet above the ground.

The head of the sanitary service of the 5th American fleet, commander Willkatts said that no parachutes were used in the dropping of the bombs. He also said no bomb could fall without detonating. 

He said after the bombing the zone of impact is safe and the Japanese are exaggerating the effects of a nuclear bomb.

(The pictures above are from the online sources, and not from the report)

“Europa braucht Russland und Russland braucht Europa”; Erklärung des Willy-Brandt-Kreises für einen neuen europäischen Umgang mit der Ukraine-Krise

Sperrfrist: 21. Juli 2015, 12.00 Uhr!

Erklärung des Willy-Brandt-Kreises

Zum bedrohten Frieden –

für einen neuen europäischen Umgang mit der Ukraine-Krise

Europa durchlebt die schwerste Krise seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts. Nicht nur der Umgang mit Griechenland und den Flüchtlingsströmen hält den Kontinent in Atem, auch der mühsam ausgehandelte Waffenstillstand in der östlichen Ukraine ist brüchig. Solange der Konflikt um die Zukunft der Ukraine ungelöst ist, besteht die ständige Gefahr eines Abstur-zes.

Eine umfassende Friedensordnung für Europa, dieses Versprechen der Charta von Paris von 1990, ist unerfüllt geblieben. Doch Europa kann kein Interesse daran haben, die alte Rivalität der Supermächte USA und Sowjetunion fortzusetzen und Russland in die Knie zu zwingen. Das unterscheidet die europäische von der amerikanischen Interessenlage: Ohne Russland o-der gar gegen Russland kann kaum ein Problem gelöst werden, das Europa als Ganzes betrifft. Das zeigt die jüngste Geschichte: Russland und die Völker der Sowjetunion haben entschei-dend zur Befreiung Europas vom Faschismus beigetragen, aber auch zur deutschen Vereini-gung. Deutschland hat daher eine besondere Verantwortung, Russland als Partner in einer eu-ropäischen Friedensordnung zu gewinnen.

1990 schien diese Frage ein für alle Mal beantwortet: Russland als Mitarchitekt der europäi-schen Einigung, würde natürlich – wie auch die USA – ein Anker und ein gleichberechtigter Partner sein. Russland sah sich seither in seinen Erwartungen enttäuscht: Die Erweiterungspo-litik der EU und vor allem der NATO schloss eine Mitgliedschaft Russlands ausdrücklich aus: zu groß, zu komplex, hieß es damals – während einige Staaten im östlichen Europa das Ziel ihres Beitritts zur westlichen Allianz offen als Sicherheitsvorsorge vor Russland betrieben. Ohne eigene Beitrittsperspektive Russlands nährte die Erweiterung der westlichen Bünd-nisstrukturen alte russische Einkreisungsängste, welche nationalistische Reflexe und den all-mählichen Rückfall in das Denken in geopolitischen Kategorien und Einflusszonen begünstig-ten.

Die ukrainische Krise ist somit Ausdruck eines heraufziehenden russisch -euroatlantischen Großkonflikts, der in eine Katastrophe münden kann, wenn die sich bereits drehende Spirale des Wettrüstens, der militärischen Provokationen und konfrontativen Rhetorik nicht gestoppt wird. Wir wenden uns daher an alle verantwortlichen Politiker und friedensbewegten Bürger, aber vor allem ganz direkt an die SPD:

In dieser Situation ist eine mutige politische Initiative gefordert, vergleichbar jener, die nach Mauerbau und Kubakrise in der Hochzeit des Kalten Krieges den Ausbruch aus der Logik der Konfrontation mit der Sowjetunion wagte. Damals war es in Europa allen voran die deutsche Sozialdemokratie, die mit der neuen Ostpolitik Willy Brandts einer europäischen Entspan-nungspolitik den Weg ebnete. 2015 bedarf es ebensolchen Mutes und politischer Klugheit, um der drohenden Spirale neuerlicher Konfrontation und Spaltung Europas zu begegnen. Wir for-dern daher innezuhalten und einen Neustart der Beziehungen mit Russland zu wagen, bevor es für Alle und Alles zu spät ist!

(1) Die Ukraine-Krise lässt sich durch politische Sanktionen gegen Russland nicht lösen. Die tieferliegenden Ursachen der russisch-europäischen Entfremdung gehören auf die politische Tagesordnung europäisch-russischer Gipfelgespräche. Dauerhafter Interes-senausgleich gelingt nur durch Dialog und Verhandlungen. Die wirtschaftlichen Sank-tionen unterminieren die Entwicklung Europas als gemeinsamer Wirtschaftsraum. Zu-sammenarbeit ist ein Motor der Vertrauensbildung. Eine intakte Energieinfrastruktur, die durch die aktuellen Spannungen bereits in Mitleidenschaft gezogen wurde, liegt genauso im gemeinsamen Interesse wie wechselseitige Handelsbeziehungen.

(2) Die Europäische Union darf sich infolge ihrer Mitverantwortung für das Entstehen dieser Krise nicht der Mitwirkung an deren einvernehmlicher Lösung entziehen. Das Zusammenwirken von Deutschland, Frankreich und Polen mit der Ukraine und Russ-land beim Minsk II-Abkommen, ist ein innovativer Ansatz. Von dessen Umsetzung hängt es ab, gestörtes Vertrauen zurückzugewinnen. Aber eine breitere europäische Einbettung tut not. Deutschland muss hierfür im kommenden Jahr seine Verantwor-tung in der OSZE-Präsidentschaft in die Waagschale werfen und konzeptionell wie di-alogorientiert agieren.

(3) Weil auch die USA als wichtigster Partner der neuen ukrainischen Regierung eine hohe Verantwortung für die Lösung der Krise haben, sind alle Gremien wichtig, die Russland und die USA zusammenbringen. Gerade in Krisenzeiten bedarf es besonders engmaschiger Kommunikation. Daher sollten die G7 Russland sofort wieder einbezie-hen, der NATO-Russland Rat muss seine Arbeit schnellstmöglich wieder aufnehmen. Notwendige Krisenkommunikation darf nicht beschränkt oder gar verhindert, sondern muss ausgebaut werden.

(4) Die Einverleibung der Krim durch Russland ist ein Verstoß gegen internationale Ab-kommen und zugleich eine politische Realität, die nicht gegen den Mehrheitswillen der Bevölkerung der Krim rückgängig gemacht werden kann. Der Status Quo darf die Notwendigkeit der konstruktiven Zusammenarbeit mit den Beteiligten im gemeinsa-men europäischen Interesse nicht unterbinden.

(5) Die Ukraine-Krise ist auch das Ergebnis einer schwachen föderalen Struktur in einem noch jungen Staat. Nur eine starke föderale Ordnung kann das Land vor ethnischer Spaltung und drohender Sezession bewahren. Die Erfahrungen anderer europäischer Staaten mit föderalen Strukturen sollten von den Parteien in der Ukraine abgerufen werden können, wenn sie dies wünschen.

(6) Eine Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine in der NATO würde kein Mehr an Sicherheit bringen. Sie würde im Gegenteil russische Befürchtungen über die Ziele der NATO weiter be-feuern und die Risiken ungewollter militärischer Konfrontation noch erhöhen. Die Vertrauensbildung zwischen den politischen und militärischen Gremien aller europäi-schen Staaten, wie sie im Rahmen des „Wiener Dokuments” der OSZE, zuletzt 2011, vorgesehen ist, ist gerade in Krisenzeiten auszubauen.

(7) Die Ukraine-Krise gefährdet die europäische Rüstungskontrolle. Wettrüsten, die Ver-lagerung von militärischen Ausrüstungen und neue Truppenstationierungen beiderseits der russischen Grenze legen die Axt an das bestehende System von Verträgen. Die Be-teiligung deutscher Truppen bei der Aufstellung von „Eingreiftruppen” kann auf russi-scher Seite Erinnerungen an den deutschen Überfall auslösen und unnötig Öl ins Feuer gießen. Militärische Entflechtung, Nichtverbreitung und die Begrenzung von Waffen-arsenalen und Truppen sind Aufgaben, die keinen Aufschub dulden.

 

(8) Die im Zusammenhang mit der Ukraine-Krise erneut aufgebrochenen Drohungen mit dem Einsatz von Atom-Waffen sind alarmierend. Es droht eine Neuauflage der „Nach-rüstung” der 80er Jahre mit atomaren Mittelstreckenraketen in Europa. Atom-Waffen müssen endlich geächtet werden. In ihrer die ganze Welt erreichenden Vernichtungs-kraft müssen sie als prinzipiell nicht einsetzbar gelten.

(9) Die Friedensordnung Europas ist nicht nur eine Ordnung der Staaten. Sie beruht auf starken Zivilgesellschaften, grenzüberschreitender Zusammenarbeit in den Bereichen Kultur, Medien, Sport, Wissenschaft u.a.m. Auch durch die Neubelebung des europäi-schen Jugendaustauschs mit Russland und der Ukraine können stereotype Denkweisen überwunden und generationenübergreifend Impulse für ein besseres Verständnis von-einander – und ein gutes Verhältnis miteinander – gesetzt werden.

Europa braucht Russland und Russland braucht Europa. Wir stehen vor der Weichenstel-lung, in einen neuen, mehr oder weniger Kalten Krieg mit ungewisser Perspektive abzuglei-ten oder uns auf das Ziel einer gemeinsamen europäischen Friedensordnung zu besinnen.

Die Zeit zum Handeln ist jetzt!

Berlin, den 21. Juli 2015

Prof. Egon Bahr, Prof. Dr. Elmar Brähler, Prof. Dr. Peter Brandt, Volker Braun, Daniela Dahn, Dr. Friedrich Dieckmann, Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Gießmann, Prof. Dr. Lutz Götze, Prof. Dr. Ingomar Hauchler, Dr. Enrico Heitzer, Gunter Hofmann, Prof. Dr. Gustav Horn, Prof. Dr. Dieter Klein, Dr. Rainer Land, Dr. Hans Misselwitz, Dr. Irina Mohr, Prof. Dr. Götz Neuneck, Prof. Dr. Rolf Reissig, Dr. Edelbert Richter, Wolfgang Schmidt, Axel Schmidt-Gödelitz, Prof. Dr. Michael Schneider, Dr. Friedrich Schorlemmer, Ingo Schulze, Prof. Klaus Staeck, Prof. Dr. Walther Stützle, Antje Vollmer, Dr. Christoph Zöpel

Click to access 150721-zum-bedrohten-frieden-erklaerung-des-willy-brandt-kreises_juli2015.pdf

 

“Europe needs Russia and Russia needs Europe”: Influential German figures call for a new European approach to the crisis in Ukraine

Global Research, August 05, 2015

A couple of weeks ago a group of influencial German figures, the members of Willy Brandt Circle, have signed an Open Letter to SPD (German Social-Democrats) Bundestag delegates and cabinet ministers urging them to abandon the confrontational course in relations with Russia. The authors reviewed the degrading EU-Russia ties in the context of Ukraine’s crisis which was the direct result of mutual misunderstandings and controversies. Hereby ORIENTAL REVIEW publishes an exclusive English translation of the Letter in full:

***

Europe is experiencing the worst crisis since the end of the East-West conflict. Not only dealing with Greece and the thousands of refugees heighten tenses across the continent, but also the ceasefire negotiation process in Ukraine remains fragile. As long as the conflict over the future of Ukraine is unsolved, the real danger of escalation is on the table.

A comprehensive peace treaty for Europe, envisioned by the Charter of Paris 1990, is still needed. Europe has no interest in aggravating old controversy between the United States and the USSR, bringing Russia to its knees. There is a difference between the European and the American interests: pan-European problems cannot be solved without Russia or even against Russia. Recent history shows: Russia and the peoples of the Soviet Union contributed more than anyone to the liberation of Europe from fascism and later to the unification of Germany. Therefore, Germany has a special responsibility to win Russia as a negotiating partner in the European peace order.

In 1990 it seemed that the answer to these questions is found once and for all: Russia became a co-architect of the European integration. Russia, alongside with the USA, would naturally become an anchor and an equal partner. Since then Russia’s expectations have been deeply disappointed: EU and, what’s more important, NATO enlargement policy totally excluded the possibility of Russia’s membership. It was too difficult, as the country was too big. Moreover, some Eastern European states claimed that their quick accession to NATO membership was a military precaution against Russia. Having no perspective to join NATO itself, more and more patriotic Russia sees the expansion of the structures of the Western alliance as a threat. NATO expansion nourished Russia’s old fear of being surrounded and it was gradually forced to thinking in geopolitical categories and zones of influence.

The Ukrainian crisis is a reflection of a major conflict between Russia and the Euro-Atlantic structures. It may lead to a catastrophe if the ongoing arms race, military provocations and confrontational rhetoric is not stopped. We strongly appeal to all responsible politicians and peace-loving citizens but first and foremost directly to the SPD:

In this situation bold political initiative is needed comparable to the initiatives that helped to stop the conflict spiral during Berlin Wall and Cuban Missile Crisis. It was German social democracy that paved the way to the new Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and the détente. In 2015 we require such courage and political wisdom to counter the threat of renewed confrontation and division of Europe. We call to stop the confrontation and restart our relations with Russia before it is too late for all of us.

  • The Ukraine crisis cannot be solved by political sanctions against Russia. The underlying causes of the Russian-European alienation should be discussed at EU-Russia summit talks. Lasting reconciliation of interests can only be achieved through dialogue and negotiation. The economic sanctions undermine the development of Europe as a common economic area. Cooperation is an engine of confidence building. Energy infrastructure that has already been affected by the current sharpening of contradictions is a vital part of our mutual interests and bilateral trade.
  • The European Union that is partially responsible for the roots of the crisis must contribute to its solution on the basis of consensus. The interaction of Germany, France and Poland with Ukraine and Russia in Minsk II Agreement is an innovative approach. Implementation of Minsk II may bridge the credibility gap. A wider European integration is needed. Germany must throw into the say its position as a future OSCE president and act in the spirit of dialogue.
  • The United States as the most important partner of the new Ukrainian government has also high responsibility to find a solution to the crisis. All available international fora should be used to bring Russia and the US together. In times of crisis we need to maintain close ties in order to communicate effectively. Therefore, G7 should involve Russia and the work of the NATO-Russia Council should continue as soon as possible. Essential ways to negotiate in crisis should not be limited but broadened.
  • The incorporation of the Crimea into Russia is a violation of international agreements. At the same time it is a political reality that cannot be undone against the will of the majority of Crimea’s voters. The status quo must not undermine the constructive cooperation with stakeholders of the common European interest.
  • Ukrainian crisis is also the result of a weak federal structure in a relatively new state. Only through a strong federal system the country can protect itself from ethnic strife and the threat of secession. The experience of other European countries with federal structure should be offered to Ukraine if needed.
  • NATO membership for Ukraine will not enhance Alliance’s security. It will fuel the flame of Russia’s fears about NATO objectives and increase the risks of unwanted military confrontation. The framework of the OSCE and the “Vienna Document” 2011 is vital in times of crisis and should be implemented to bring together political and military bodies of all European states.
  • The Ukraine crisis threatens the European arms control. Arms race, transfer of lethal military equipment and new troop deployments on both sides of the Russian border undermine the existing system of arms control treaties. The participation of German troops in the military training of the “intervention force” can trigger on the Russian side memories of the German invasion and aggravate tension, which is unnecessary. Disengagement of troops, non-proliferation and arms curbs are goals to be achieved as soon as possible.
  • During the Ukraine crisis we saw alarming rise of nuclear intent once again. There is a risk of rearming with medium range nuclear missiles in Europe as it happened in the 1980-es. Nuclear weapons must be finally outlawed. A matter of principle weapons of total annihilation should not be part of employable forces.
  • European peace order is not only an order of states. It is based on strong civil societies and, among other, international cooperation in the field of culture, media, sports and science. Restart of European youth exchange programs with Russia and Ukraine may help to overcome stereotyping and encourage better understanding of each other and, consequently, build better relations.

Europe needs Russia and Russia needs Europe. We stand at a tipping point. Either we enter a more or less Cold war with dim future or pave the way together the new common European peace order.

Now is the time to act!

Berlin, July, 21, 2015

Signers:

Prof. Egon Bahr was the creator of the “Ostpolitik” promoted by West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, for whom he served as Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office from 1969 until 1972. Between 1972 and 1990 he was an MP in the Bundestag.

Prof. Dr. Walther Stützle was the Deputy Minister of Defense in 1998-2002.

Dr. Christoph Zöpel is the SPD politician, Foreign Minister in 1999-2002.

Prof. Dr. Ingomar Hauchler, Bundestag MP (SPD) from 1983 to 1998.

Antje Vollmer, is a member of the German Green Party. From 1994 to 2005, she was one of the vice presidents of the Bundestag.

Prof. Dr. Dieter Klein is the Head of the Commission on the Future of the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation and a member of its Board.

Prof. Dr. Gustav Horn is the Professor of Economics at the University of Flensburg, Scientific Director of the Institute of Macroeconomic Research in the Hans Böckler Foundation.

Dr. Rainer Land is the German social scientist and economist.

Prof. Dr. Götz Neuneck is the Deputy Director of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) and Director of the Interdisciplinary Research Group Arms Control and Disarmament (IFAR).

Prof. Dr. Rolf Reissig is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation.

Prof. Dr. Elmar Brähler, was the Professor of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology at the University of Leipzig.

Prof. Dr. Peter Brandt is the German historian and retired Professor for Modern and Contemporary History at the University of Hagen.

Prof. Dr. Michael Schneider is the German political journalist and literary critic.

Prof. Klaus Staeck is a German lawyer and publisher.

Dr. Friedrich Dieckmann is the author of essays, reviews, stories and radio features.

Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Gießmann is the Executive Director of Berghof Foundation.

Prof. Dr. Lutz Götze, Professor Emeritus of the University of Saarland.

Dr. Enrico Heitzer, Researcher of the Brandenburg Memorials Foundation.

Gunter Hofmann is the German journalist working for Die Zeit.

Dr. Hans Misselwitz is a functionary of the SPD and a founding member of the Institute Solidarity modernity.

Dr. Irina Mohr is the leader of Forum Berlin of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Dr. Edelbert Richter is a Member of the European Parliament in 1991-1994, German Bundestag MP in 1994-2002, member of the Federation of German Scientists.

Dr. Friedrich Schorlemmer, is a German Protestant theologian, civil rights activist and member of the SPD.

Wolfgang Schmidt is the Hamburg Commissioner to the Federal Government, the European Union and of Foreign Affairs; Member of the Committee of the Regions.

Axel Schmidt-Gödelitz is the Chairman of the East-West Forum.

Volker Braun is the prominent German writer living in Berlin.

Daniela Dahn is the writer, journalist and essayist.

Ingo Schulze is a German writer from Dresden.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/europe-needs-russia-and-russia-needs-europe-influencial-german-figures-call-for-a-new-european-approach-to-the-crisis-in-ukraine/5467287

Why Russia shut down National Endowment for Democracy (NED) fronts

Global Research, July 31, 2015
Consortium News 30 July 2015

The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.”

If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty.

The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED.

The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’

“The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. …

“The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.”

But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.”

The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.

But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”

NED Is Born

The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.

This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand.

The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president.

Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that

“Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.”

Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects.

A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin.

“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government.

A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a U.S. law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison.

If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.”

Gershman’s Op-Ed

But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate.

“Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,”

Gershman wrote, adding:

“This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.”

The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed.

So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?

Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-russia-shut-down-national-endowment-for-democracy-ned-fronts/5466119

The ISIL is in Ukraine: America’s “agents of chaos” unleashed in Eurasia

Global Research, August 02, 2015
Strategic Culture Foundation 3 May 2015

Is the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)/Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) / Islamic State (IS) / Al-Dawlah Al-Islamiyah fe Al-Iraq wa Al-Sham (DAISH/DAESH) active in post-EuroMaidan Ukraine? The answer is not exact. In other words, the answer is both yes and no.

Then again, what is the ISIS/ISIL/IS/DAISH/DAESH? It is a loosely knit band of militias, just like its predecessor Al-Qaeda. Included in its network are groups from the Caucasus, which have been fighting in Syria and Iraq. Now they are in Ukraine and using it as a steppingstone into Europe.

The Agents of Chaos and the War for Eurasia

The conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen are all fronts in a multi-dimensional war being waged by the US and its allies. This multi-dimensional war aims to encircle Eurasia. China, Iran, and Russia are the main targets.

The US also has an order of operations with which to takeout these countries. Iran is first, followed by Russia, with China as the last part of the Eurasian set comprised of this «Eurasian Triple Entente.» It is no coincidence that the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen are near the borders of Iran and Russia, because Tehran and Moscow are the nearer term targets of Washington.

In the same vein as the interlinked nature of the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, there is also a connection between the violent, racist, xenophobic, and sectarian forces that have been unleashed as «agents of chaos.» It is no mere coincidence that Newsweek had a headline saying «Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing ‘ISIS-Style’ War Crimes» on September 10, 2014. [1] Whether they know it or not, these deviant forces, whether they are the ultra-nationalist Pravy Sektor militias in Ukraine or the head-cutting gangs of Al-Nusra and the ISIS/ISIL/IS/DAISH/DAESH in Syria and Iraq, all serve one master. These agents of chaos are unleashing different waves of constructive chaos to prevent Eurasian integration and a world order that is free of US dictates.

The «constructive chaos» that is being unleashed in Eurasia will eventually wreck havoc in India. If New Delhi thinks that it will be left alone, it is foolishly mistaken. The same agents of chaos will plague it as well. It too is a target like China, Iran, and Russia.

Strange Alliances: Alliance between the ISIL/DAESH and Ukraine’s Ultra-Nationalists?

It should not come as a surprise that the different agents of chaos are loosely aligned. They serve the same master and they have the same enemies, one of which is the Russian Federation.

It is in this context that Marcin Mamon has reported about the ISIS/ISIL/IS/DAISH/DAESH connection in Ukraine. He even explains that some of the fighters from the Caucasus feel that they have a debt to Ukrainians like Oleksandr Muzychko. [2]

Mamon is a Polish documentary filmmaker who has produced a number of documentaries about Chechnya, such as The Smell of Paradise with Mariusz Pilis in 2005, for the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Storyville program. He is also openly sympathetic to the cause of the Chechen separatists against Russia in the North Caucasus.

Mamon’s travels to Afghanistan and his interaction with Chechen separatist fighters have resulted in the Polish filmmaker having contacts with the ISIS/ISIL/IS/DAISH/DAESH inside Syria and Turkey. This extraordinarily led him down a new path to Ukraine.

«I didn’t even know, at that point, whom I was meeting. I knew only that Khalid, my contact in Turkey with the Islamic State [ISIS/ISIL/IS/DAISH/DAESH], had told me his ‘brothers’ were in Ukraine, and I could trust them», he writes about his meeting in a «potholed street in Kiev, east of the Dnieper River, in an area known as the Left Bank.» [3] In an earlier article Mamon explains that these so-called «‘brothers’ are members of ISIS and other underground Islamic organizations» who «are on every continent, and in almost every country, and now they are in Ukraine, too.» [4] He also explains that «Khalid, who uses a pseudonym, leads the Islamic State’s underground branch in Istanbul. He came from Syria to help control the flood of volunteers arriving in Turkey from all over the world, wanting to join the global jihad. Now, he wanted to put me in touch with Ruslan, a ‘brother’ fighting with Muslims in Ukraine». [5]

Ukrainian ultra-nationalists like Muzychko also became so-called «brothers» and accepted into this network. Mamon explains that the Chechen fighters accepted him «even though he never converted to Islam» and that «Muzyczko, along with other Ukrainian volunteers, joined Chechen fighters and took part in the first Chechen war against Russia» where they «commanded a branch of Ukrainian volunteers, called ‘Viking,’ which fought under famed Chechen militant leader Shamil Basayev.» [6]

Why is the ISIL manning Private Battalions in Ukraine?

What does it say when Chechen separatists and the transnational network of so-called «brothers» tied to the ISIS/ISIL/IS/DAISH/DAESH are being recruited or used to fill the ranks of private militias being using by Ukrainian oligarchs? This is a very important question. It also clearly demonstrates how these elements are agents of chaos.

Marcin Mamon travelled to Ukraine to meet the Chechen fighter Isa Munayev. Munayev’s background is explained thus: «Even before he arrived in Ukraine, Munayev was well-known. He fought against Russian forces in both Chechen wars; in the second, he was the commander of the war in Grozny. After the Chechen capital was captured by Russian forces between 1999 and 2000, Munayev and his men took refuge in the mountains. He fought from there until 2005, when he was seriously injured and went to Europe for treatment. Munayev lived in Denmark until 2014. Then war broke out in Ukraine, and he decided it was time to fight the Russians again.» [7]

The above is an important passage, because it illustrates how the US and EU have supported militants fighting against Russia. In the US and the EU, the refuge that Denmark gave Isa Munayev is not questioned, whereas the allegations leveled against Moscow for supporting the soldiers of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic are seen as criminal. Why the double standards? Why is it okay for the US, EU, and NATO to support separatist movements and militias in other parts of the world, but criticized and forbidden for other countries to do the same?

«An older man in a leather jacket introduced me to Munayev. ‘Our good brother Khalid recommended this man,’ the man said. (Khalid is today one of the most important leaders of the Islamic State. Khalid and Munayev knew each other from years spent fighting together in Chechnya),» Marcin Mamon explains about the connections between the Chechen separatists and ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daish/Daesh. [8]

Munayev has come to Ukraine to establish «one of what would become several dozen private battalions that sprang up to fight on the side of the Ukrainian government, operating separately from the military.» [9] His militia was named the Dzhokhar Dudayev battalion, which was named after the separatist president of Chechnya.

NOTES

[1] Damien Sharkov, «Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing ‘ISIS-Style’ War Crimes,» Newsweek, September 10, 2014.

[2] Marcin Mamon, «In Midst of War, Ukraine Becomes Gateway for Jihad,» Intercept, February 26, 2015.

[3] Marcin Mamon, «Isa Munayev’s War: The Final Days of a Chechen Commander Fighting in Ukraine», Intercept, February 27, 2015.

[4-6] Marcin Mamon, «In Midst of War,» op. cit.

[7-9] Marcin Mamon, «Isa Munayev’s War,» op. cit.

This article was originally published by the Strategic Culture Foundation on May 3, 2015.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isil-is-in-ukraine-americas-agents-of-chaos-unleashed-in-eurasia/5446989

The fake war on ISIS: US and Turkey escalate in Syria

Global Research, August 03, 2015
New Eastern Outlook 2 August 2015

It is late July 2015, and the media is abuzz with the news that Turkey will allow US jets to use its bases to bomb Islamic State (ISIS) targets in Syria. There is much talk about how this development is a “game-changer,” and how this is a clear escalation of the much ballyhooed, but more fictional than real, US war on ISIS: the terror organization that US intelligence welcomed as a positive development in 2012 in their continued attempts to instigate regime change against the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad.

The western public is told that “This is a significant shift…It’s a big deal,” as a US military official told the Wall Street Journal. What the corporate media fail to mention, however, is the fact that Turkey has been, and continues to be, a central actor in the war in Syria and, consequently, in the development and maintenance of ISIS. So, while Washington waxes poetic about stepping up the fight against the terror group, and lauds the participation of its allies in Ankara, the barely concealed fact is that Turkey is merely further entrenching itself in a war that it has fomented.

Of equal importance is the simple fact that a “war on ISIS” is merely a pretext for Turkey’s military engagement in Syria and throughout the region. Not only does Turkey’s neo-Ottoman revanchist President Erdogan want to flex his military muscles in order to further the regime change agenda in Syria, he also is using recent tragic events as political and diplomatic cover for waging a new aggressive war against the region’s Kurds, especially Turkey’s longtime foe the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).

In this way, Turkey’s recent moves should be seen as merely a new phase of its engagement in the regional war that it has helped foment. Contrary to western corporate media talking points, Turkey has not just recently become actively engaged in the conflict; Ankara has merely shifted its strategy and its tactics, moving from covert engagement to overt participation.

Same War, New Phase

The immediate justification for the launching of renewed airstrikes by Turkey and the US is the expansion of the war against ISIS. In the wake of the bombing in Turkey’s majority Kurdish town of Suruç, which killed 32 youth activists, the Turkish government has allegedly struck hard against both ISIS and PKK targets. It is against this backdrop that any analysis of the new phase of this war must be presented.

First and foremost is the fact that even if one were to accept the Turkish government’s official story – the suicide bomber was linked to the Islamic State (ISIS) – not at all a certainty, the question of ultimate responsibility becomes central. While Ankara would have the world believe that its hands are clean, and that it is the innocent victim of international terrorism, the reality is that Turkey has done everything to foster and promote the growth of ISIS from the very beginning. As such, it is the Turkish government who must shoulder much of the blame for the Suruç bombing.

Since at least 2012, Turkey has been the principal conduit for weapons flowing into Syria. In June of that year, the NY Times confirmed that the CIA was smuggling weapons to anti-Assad forces from the Turkish side of the border using agents of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, long-time assets of US intelligence. Also in 2012, Reuters revealed that Turkey had “set up a secret base with allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to direct vital military and communications aid to Syria’s rebels from a city near the border… ‘It’s the Turks who are militarily controlling it. Turkey is the main coordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom,’ said a Doha-based source.”

It is now also documented fact that Turkish intelligence (MIT) has been an active player in the ongoing campaign to arm and resupply the terror groups such as the al Nusra Front and others. The evidence of this fact was made public by the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet which published video footage along with transcripts from wiretaps confirming what many eyewitnesses have stated:  Turkish security forces have been directly involved in shelling and support operations for Nusra front and other jihadi groups in and around Kassab, Syria, among other sites. Many of the very same terrorists who have been armed and supported by the Turkish government are today being held up as enemies of Turkey, and rationalization of the need for Turkish military intervention.

So, with the inescapable understanding that Turkey’s government is the primary supporter and sponsor of terrorist groups in Syria, the justification for war becomes flimsy at best. But, if it’s not about fighting terror, then what exactly is Ankara’s objective? What does it hope to gain?

At the top of Erdogan’s agenda is using ISIS as a pretext for effecting the regime change in Syria that he has failed to bring about for these past four years. Despite providing weapons and cash, training sites and political cover, Turkey’s terror proxies have been roundly defeated by the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, and allied forces. As such, Erdogan now needs to provide the overwhelming military superiority required to get the job done. This means air support and a “No Fly Zone” along the Turkey-Syria border, one which ostensibly will allow Turkey to fight ISIS, but in actuality is a means of securing territory for the terrorists who otherwise have been unable to do so. It is a de facto military intervention into Syria. Perhaps not even de facto, but outright declaration of war – a clear war crime.

Secondly, the alleged war on ISIS is a politically expedient cover for Erdogan to wage a full-scale war on the Kurds, and the PKK specifically. Within hours of announcing the new phase of the war, Turkish forces were bombing Kurdish targets in Syria and Iraq, effectively declaring war on both countries, in blatant violation of international law, to whatever extent such a thing still exists. Indeed, Erdogan made his position quite clear when he stated, “It is not possible for us to continue the peace process with those who threaten our national unity and brotherhood.” Essentially, Erdogan has declared war on all Kurds of the region.

Perhaps most important, and almost never discussed in the West, is the simple fact that Turkey is perpetuating an outright myth in their supposed strategy to create “Islamic State-free zones” along the border; Turkey plans to work with “moderate opposition” and “Free Syrian Army” in this endeavor. However, the fact remains that there is really no such thing as the “moderates,” and those terrorists that had at one time been labeled such have all either gone home, fled the country, gone over to the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, or are now fighting under the ISIS banner. And so, by stating such a plan, Erdogan is unwittingly admitting what this author has already reported numerous times – Turkey acts as military muscle for ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria and now Iraq.

But of course, were Turkey the only relevant party, these developments would not be of nearly the same global significance. Rather, it is the participation and collusion of the US and NATO that makes this troubling escalation far more dangerous.

Making Overt the Covert War

As of writing, NATO has not yet been convened to discuss Turkey’s war on Syria and the Kurds, though Ankara has called for the meeting under Article 4 of the NATO treaty which provides for consultation, but not necessarily collaborative military action. However, regardless of how the meeting proceeds, Turkey has been given overt support in its war by the US, which is, in effect, NATO.

Although the US feigns concern for the Kurds and the expansion of the war, Washington has in fact endorsed Turkey’s policy. White House spokesman Alistair Baskey noted that the US “strongly condemns” recent attacks by the PKK, reiterating the fact that Turkey is an important US and NATO ally. As Obama’s close adviser on national security matters Ben Rhodes stated, “The US, of course, recognises the PKK specifically as a terrorist organisation. And, so, again Turkey has a right to take action related to terrorist targets.”

While it would appear that Washington is taking a measured approach, cautiously supporting Turkey while trying to limit the scope of the operation, that illusion is merely for appearance’s sake. In fact, the Brookings Institution just last month issued a policy paper entitled Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country, which brazenly laid out a plan to, as political analyst Tony Cartalucci astutely pointed out, “divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy” Syria using the pretext of ISIS and terrorism. And that is precisely what we’re witnessing now.

But neither Cartalucci, nor this author, nor any other colleagues who have predicted this turn of events are clairvoyant. Rather, this development was very much expected. As noted above, those terrorists who now provide the rationale for a new war were the very same ones openly supported by the countries now waging the war. It was clear at the time that this would be their ultimate role. Sadly, the world has not effectively mobilized to stop this imperialist war thus far.

The question remains: will Syria survive? The answer depends on the continued resolve of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies, and on the global Resistance’s capacity to organize itself to effectively oppose the Empire in Syria and beyond.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fake-war-on-isis-us-and-turkey-escalate-in-syria/5466593

Psychologist openly admits he trains American police officers to shoot first and ask questions later

From the Daily Kos, August 3, 2015
By Shaun King

Don’t worry if you shoot an unarmed lady in the back, I’ll be there for you.

For years, to any observer of police brutality, the idea that officers were shooting people first and asking questions later was a foregone conclusion. Such a practice, while blatantly obvious, seemed too unethical, too harsh for police to ever admit.

Well, here it is. All of the proof we ever needed. Not only are American police, from coast to coast, shooting first and asking questions later, they are being trained to do so in seminars by a psychologist who openly promises them that he’ll testify on their behalf if anything ever goes wrong. He’s already done it nearly 200 times.

Meet Dr. William J. Lewinski.

No matter what the circumstances are in a police shooting, he’s the guy departments lean on to say it was completely justified and unavoidable.

His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.

He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.

It’s actually big business. A quick scan of Dr. Lewinski’s website has him teaching large workshops in Chicago, San Antonio, Orlando, and in other big cities across the country.

Can’t make it to his conferences, don’t worry, he’ll come to your department, and offer your officers a certificate on how they are basically allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. He charges $1,000 an hour for his testimony and is, unsurprisingly, willing to testify for hours on end.

Hell, his whole company is named Force Science Institute—as in the use of force by police. This business is so lucrative that it’s all he does. Experts are denouncing his work as phony and dangerous, but police departments could care less.

An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.” Civil rights lawyers say he is selling dangerous ideas.

“People die because of this stuff,” said John Burton, a California lawyer who specializes in police misconduct cases. “When they give these cops a pass, it just ripples through the system.”

This is why we say “Black Lives Matter.”

Dr. Lewinski is basically training police to shoot before making a full assessment of the true threat. Because of this philosophy, it leans on the implicit bias within each and every officer. It’s why officers in New York fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo when he was pulling out his wallet. It’s why Officer Dante Servin blew Rekia Boyd’s head off when he saw her boyfriend pull out a cell phone.

It’s why police officers killed 123 people in July, a high for 2015.

It’s despicable and the more it happens, the richer Dr. Lewinski gets. I had always suspected some type of profit motive was behind the wholesale killing of Americans by police. Now we don’t need to speculate. After all, it’s the job for the Force Science Institute to keep this practice growing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/03/1408341/-Psychologist-openly-admits-he-trains-police-officers-to-shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later#

Also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html