Month: June 2016

Churkin: International community should pressure those who support terrorism in Syria

Posted by

0

From Syrian Arab News Agency

6 June، 2016

New York, SANA-Russia’s permanent envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin called on the international community to press the sides which support terrorist organizations in Syria, among them Jabhat al-Nusra, instead of pressing the Syrian government, demanding the EU to keep channels of communications open with Syria.

“It is necessary to understand that pressures on Damascus will not lead to achieving the aspired-for result, but those who support terrorists should be pressed, including al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra,” Russia Today quoted Churkin as saying at a special meeting between the UN and the European Union on Monday.

He added that some members at “al-Riyadh opposition delegation” form a basic obstacle in front of realizing a political solution for the crisis in Syria.

Churkin called on the EU to keep channels of dialogue with the Syrian authorities open, adding that Moscow welcomes the meeting which was held between Head of the Syrian Arab Republic’s delegation Bashar al-Jaafari and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini last March in Geneva.

Mazen

http://sana.sy/en/?p=79483

Obama slams door in Putin’s face: by his actions says if Putin doesn’t want Russia’s retaliatory forces eliminated, he’ll need to be the one to press the nuclear button first

Posted by

0

What Zuesse describes is a duplicitous enemy, one who masquerades with pretty words and distracting gestures as a friend, while planning your downfall.

The clock is ticking down.

From Global Research

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, June 06, 2016
The Saker
obama-putin

Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin.

On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”

Russia’s concern is that, if the “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works, then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System”, will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere, and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable probems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.

That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction) was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining “The Rise of Nuclear Primacy” and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.

Paul Craig Roberts was the first reporter in the West to write in a supportive way about Russia’s concerns that Barack Obama might be a follower of that theory. One of Roberts’s early articles on this was issued on 17 June 2014 and headlined “Washington Is Beating The War Drums”, where he observed that “US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack.”

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has tried many times to raise this issue with President Obama, the most recent such instance being via a public statement of his concern, made on May 27th. Apparently, the public statement by Antonov on June 5th is following up on that latest Putin effort, by Antonov’s announcement there that Obama now explicitly refuses to discuss Putin’s concerns about the matter.

The fact that these efforts on the part of the Russian government are via public media instead of via private conversations (such as had been the means used during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. President was concerned about the Soviet President’s installation of nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. border) suggests that Mr. Obama, unlike U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1962, refuses to communicate with Russia, now that the U.S. is potentially in the position of the aggressor.

Russia is making its preparations, just in case it will (because of the Aegis Ashore system) need to be the first to attack. However, some knowledgeable people on the subject say that Russia will never strike first. Perhaps U.S. President Obama is proceeding on the basis of a similar assumption, and this is the reason why he is refusing to discuss the matter with his Russian counterpart. However, if Mr. Obama wishes to avoid a nuclear confrontation, then refusing even to discuss the opponent’s concerns would not be the way to go about doing that. Obama is therefore sending signals to the contrary — that he is preparing a nuclear attack against Russia — simply by his refusal to discuss the matter. In this case, his action of refusal is, itself, an answer to Putin’s question, like slamming the door in Putin’s face would be. It’s a behavioral answer, instead of a merely verbal one.

The geostrategist John Helmer discussed on May 30th the question of when the “Trigger Point” will likely be for Putin to decide whether there is no reasonable alternative but to launch — and for him then to launch — World War III.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The original source of this article is The Saker
Copyright © Eric Zuesse, The Saker, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-slams-door-in-putins-face-says-if-putin-doesnt-want-russias-retaliatory-forces-eliminated-hell-need-to-be-the-one-to-press-the-nuclear-button-first/5529237

Putin warns Romania and Poland against installing ABM missiles

Posted by

0

From RINF

May 28, 2016

Eric Zuesse

On Friday, May 27th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin again asserted that American President Barack Obama lies when saying that the reason America’s anti-ballistic missile (“ABM”) or Ballistic Missile Defense (“BMD”) system is being installed in Romania, and will soon be installed in Poland, is to protect Europe from Iranian missiles that don’t even exist and that Obama himself says won’t exist because of Obama’s deal with Iran. Putin is saying: I know that you are lying there, not being honest. You’re aiming to disable our retaliatory capacity here, not Iran’s. I’m not so dumb as to believe so transparent a lie as your assurances that this is about Iran, not about Russia.

Putin says that ABMs such as America is installing, disable a country’s (in this case, Russia’s) ability to retaliate against a blitz invasion — something increasingly likely from NATO now as NATO has extended right up to Russia’s very borders — and that Russia will not allow this disabling of Russia’s retaliatory forces.

He said that “NATO fend us off with vague statements that this is no threat to Russia … that the whole project began as a preventive measure against Iran’s nuclear program. Where is that program now? It doesn’t exist. … We have been saying since the early 2000s that we will have to react somehow to your moves to undermine international security. No one is listening to us.”

In other words, he is saying that the West is ignoring Russia’s words, and that therefore Russia will, if this continues, respond by eliminating the ABM sites before they become fully operational. To do otherwise than to eliminate any fully operational ABM system on or near Russia’s borders would be to leave the Russian people vulnerable to a blitz attack by NATO, and this will not be permitted.

He said: “At the moment the interceptor missiles installed have a range of 500 kilometers, soon this will go up to 1000 kilometers, and worse than that, they can be rearmed with 2400km-range offensive missiles even today, and it can be done by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians themselves won’t know.”

In other words: Only the Americans, who have designed and control the ABM system, will be able to know if and when Russia is left totally vulnerable. Not even the Romanians will know; and Putin says, “Russia has ‘no choice’ but to target Romania” — and later Poland, if they follow through with their plans to do the same.

By implication, Putin is saying that, whereas he doesn’t need to strike Romania’s site immediately, he’ll need to do it soon enough to block the ABM system’s upgrade that will leave Russia vulnerable to attack and (because of the fully functional ABM) with no ability on Russia’s part to counter-strike.

He is saying: Remove the ABM system, or else we’ll have to do it by knocking it out ourselves.

Putin knows that according to the Article Five, “Mutual Defense,” provision of the NATO Treaty, any attack against a NATO member, such as Romania, is supposed to elicit an attack by all NATO members against the nation that is attacking. However, Putin is saying that, if NATO is going to be attacking Russia, then it will be without any fully operational ABM system, and (by implication) that Russia’s response to any such attack will be a full-scale nuclear attack against all NATO nations, and a nuclear war resulting which will destroy the planet by unleashing all the nuclear weaponry of both sides, NATO and Russia.

Putin is saying that either Romania — and subsequently Poland — will cancel and nullify their cooperation with U.S. President Obama’s ABM installation, or else there will be a surgical strike by Russia against such installation(s), even though that would likely produce a nuclear attack against Russia by NATO, and a counter-strike nuclear attack by Russia against NATO.

When Putin said “No one is listening to us” on the other side, the NATO side, Putin meant: I don’t want to have to speak by means of a surgical strike to eliminate a NATO ABM system, but that’s the way I’ll ‘speak’ if you are deaf to words and to reason and to common decency.

He will not allow the Russian people to become totally vulnerable to a nuclear attack by the United States and its military allies. He is determined that, if NATO attacks Russia, then it will be game-over for the entire world, not only for Russia.

He is saying to Obama and to all of NATO: Please hear and understand my words, and be reasonable, because the results otherwise will be far worse for everyone if you persist in continuing to ignore my words.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Putin Warns Romania and Poland Against Installing ABM Missiles

Hillary Clinton: Electing a “foreign spy” for President?

Posted by

0

By Prof. James Petras
Global Research, June 06, 2016

During her 4 years as Secretary of State of the United States (2009-2014), Hillary Clinton controlled US foreign policy.  She had access to the most confidential information and state documents, numbering in the tens of thousands, from all of the major government departments and agencies, Intelligence, FBI, the Pentagon, Treasury and the office of the President. 

She had unfettered access to vital and secret information affecting US policy in all the key regions of the empire.

 

Today, Mme. Clinton’s critics have focused on the technical aspects of her violations of State Department procedures and guidelines regarding handling of official correspondences and her outright lies on the use of her own private e-mail server for official state business, including the handling of highly classified material in violation of Federal Records laws, as well as her hiding official documents from the Freedom of Information Act and concocting her own system exempt from the official oversight which all other government officials accept.

For many analysts, therefore, the issue is procedural, moral and ethical.  Mme. Clinton had placed herself above and beyond the norms of State Department discipline.  This evidence of her arrogance, dishonesty and blatant disregard for rules should disqualify her from becoming the President of the United States.  While revelations of Clinton’s misuse of official documents, her private system of communication and correspondence and the shredding of tens of thousands of her official interchanges, including top secret documents, are important issues to investigate, these do not address the paramount political question:  On whose behalf was Secretary Clinton carrying out the business of US foreign policy, out of the review of government oversight?

The Political Meaning and Motivation of Clinton’s High Crimes Against the State

Secretary Clinton’s private, illegal handling of official US documents has aroused a major FBI investigation into the nature of her activities.  This is separate from the investigation by the Office of the Inspector General and implies national security violations.

There are several lines of inquiry against Mme. Clinton:

(1)  Did she work with, as yet unnamed, foreign governments and intelligence services to strengthen their positions and against the interest of the United States?

(2)  Did she provide information on the operations and policy positions of various key US policymakers to competitors, adversaries or allies undermining the activities of military, intelligence and State Department officials?

(3)  Did she seek to enhance her personal power within the US administration to push her aggressive policy of serial pre-emptive wars over and against veteran State Department and Pentagon officials who favored traditional diplomacy and less violent confrontation?

(4)  Did she prepare a ‘covert team’, using foreign or dual national operative, to lay the groundwork for her bid for the presidency and her ultimate goal of supreme military and political power?

Contextualizing Clinton’s Clandestine Operations

There is no doubt that Mme. Clinton exchanged minor as well as major official documents and letters via her private e-mail system.  Personal, family and even intimate communications may have been carried on the same server.  But the key issue is that a large volume of highly confidential government information flowed to Clinton via an unsecured private ‘back channel’ allowing her to conduct state business secretly with her correspondents.

Just who were Secretary Clinton’s most enduring, persistent and influential correspondents?  What types of exchanges were going on, which required avoiding normal oversight and a wanton disregard for security?

Clinton’s covert war policies, which included the violent overthrow of the elected Ukraine government, were carried out by her ‘Lieutenant’ Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a virulent neo-conservative holdover from the previous Bush Administration and someone committed to provoking Russia and to enhancing Israel’s power in the Middle East.  Clinton’s highly dangerous and economically destabilizing ‘brainchild’ of militarily encircling China, the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’, would have required clandestine exchanges with elements in the Pentagon – out of the State Department and possibly Executive oversight.

In other words, within the Washington political circuit, Secretary Clinton’s escalation of nuclear war policies toward Russia and China required secretive correspondences which would not necessarily abide with the policies and intelligence estimates of other US government agencies and with private business interests.

Clinton was deeply engaged in private exchanges with several unsavory overseas political regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Honduras and Turkey involving covert violent and illegal activities.  She worked with the grotesquely corrupt opposition parties in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil

Clinton’s correspondence with the Honduran armed forces and brutal oligarchs led to the military coup against the elected President Zelaya, its violent aftermath and the phony election of a pliable puppet.  Given the government-death squad campaign against Honduran civil society activists, Clinton would certainly want to cover up her direct role in organizing the coup.  Likewise, Mme. Clinton would have destroyed her communications with Turkish President Erdogan’s intelligence operations in support of Islamist terrorist-mercenaries in Syria and Iraq.

Secretary Clinton’s e-mail would have shown her commitment to the Saudis when they brutally invaded Bahrain and Yemen to suppress independent civil society organizations and regional political rivals.

But it is Clinton’s long-term, large-scale commitment to Israel that goes far beyond her public speeches of loyalty and fealty to the Jewish state.  Hillary Clinton’s entire political career has been intimately dependent on Zionist money, Zionist mass media propaganda and Zionist Democratic Party operations.

In exchange for Clinton’s dependence on political support from the Zionist power configuration in the US, she would have become the major conduit of confidential information from the US to Israel and the transmission belt promoting Israel-centric policies within the US government.

The entire complex of Clinton-Israel linkages and correspondences has compromised the US intelligence services, the State Department and Pentagon.

Secretary Clinton went to extraordinary lengths to serve Israel, even undermining the interests of the United States.   It is bizarre that she would resort to such a crude measure, setting up a private e-mail server to conduct state business.  She blithely ignored official State Department policy and oversight and forwarded over 1,300 confidential documents and 22 highly sensitive top-secret documents related to the ‘Special Access Program’.  She detailed US military and intelligence documents on US strategic policies on Syria, Iraq, Palestine and other vital regimes.  The Inspector General’s report indicates that ‘she was warned’ about her practice.  It is only because of the unusual stranglehold Tel Aviv and Israel’s US Fifth Column have over the US government and judiciary that her actions have not been prosecuted as high treason.  It is the height of hypocrisy that government whistleblowers have been persecuted and jailed by the Obama Administration for raising concerns within the Inspector General system of oversight, while Secretary Clinton is on her way to the Presidency of the United States!

Conclusion

Many of Clinton’s leading critics, among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth that Hillary’s main offence is her ‘carelessness’ in handling official documents and her deliberate deceptions and lies to the government.

These critics have trivialized, personalized and moralized what is really deliberate, highly politicized state behavior.  Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not ‘careless in managing an insecure mail server’.  If Clinton was engaged in political liaison with foreign officials she deliberately used a private email server to avoid political detection by security elements within the US government.  She lied to the US government on the use and destruction of official state documents because the documents were political exchanges between a traitor and its host.

The 22 top secret reports on ‘Special Access Programs’ which Clinton handled via her private computer provided foreign governments with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for counter-responses inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program damages and possibly lost lives.

The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the surface misdeeds.  The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has gone a step further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous obstacles from Hillary’s domestic allies in pursuing a criminal investigation.  The FBI, whose director is a political appointee,  has suffered a series of defeats in its attempts to investigate and prosecute spying to Israel, including the AIPAC espionage case of Rosen and Weismann and in their long held opposition to the release of the notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard.  The power of the Zionists within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli spies captured in the US right after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Clinton’s choice of conducting secret private communications, despite  several years of State Department warnings to abide by their strict security regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base, and not a mere reflection of her personal hubris or individual arrogance.

Clinton has circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than Jonathan Pollard.

President Obama and other top Cabinet officials share her political alliances, but they operate through ‘legitimate’ channels and without compromising personnel, missions, funding or programs.

The executive leadership now faces the problem of how to deal with a traitor, who may be the Democratic Party nominee for US President, without undermining the US quest for global power. How do the executive leadership and intelligence agencies back a foreign spy for president, who has been deeply compromised and can be blackmailed?  This may explain why the FBI, NSA, and CIA hesitate to press charges; hesitate to even seriously investigate, despite the obvious nature of her offenses.  Most of all it explains why there is no indication of the identity of Secretary Clinton’s correspondents in the various reports so far available.

            As Sherlock Holmes would say, “We are entering in deep waters, Watson”.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof. James Petras, Global Research, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-electing-a-foreign-spy-for-president/5529179

Russia fiddles while Syria burns. There is no peace partner in Washington

Posted by

0

American history spells it all out: invasion, genocide, slavery, relentless land grabs, resource plundering, gunboat diplomacy, repression, wars against other countries, right-wing support, coups, assassinations, disregard for international law, corporate/Wall Street/banking partnerships, environmental destruction, slaughtering civilians, training terrorists, disrespect, megalomania (“the one indispensable nation”), silver-tongued orators, and powerful propaganda/marketing messages — repeatedly. The history of the US involvement in Latin and South America alone is crystal clear about American values and objectives. A Navy that stands for freedom doesn’t build a barracks in the shape of a swastika, as the US did in Coronado, California.

The US may be incapable of change. The truth-telling and repentance so desperately needed is largely absent; it seems banned from the mass media and public discourse. Humility and clear vision are not a national nor governmental trait. Too few Americans who understand are willing to stand up and speak out.

America is expert at manipulating words and creating deception. For your own safety and the safety of the world, do not believe the words of America. Watch America’s actions; that’s where the truth lies. 

From Global Research

By Stephen Lendman
June 05, 2016

Make no mistake. Putin’s strategic intervention in Syria last September was a bold, vital step. He deserves credit and praise for taking it.

Things changed dramatically on the ground. Reinvigorated government forces retook large swaths of earlier lost territory, freeing them from the scourge of US-sponsored terrorism.

At the same time, Russia’s all-out efforts for ceasefire and conflict resolution peace talks failed. On the one hand, the alternative is endless war. On the other, the only language America understands is force.

Moscow’s genuine diplomatic efforts can’t succeed because it has no peace partner in Washington – under Obama or whoever succeeds him.

It’s time to accept reality and act boldly, assertively and unilaterally against all terrorist groups in Syria rejecting ceasefire, Moscow following through on its earlier commitment, repeated as recently as late May and early June – so far not implemented.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry and General Staff Main Operational Directorate head General Sergei Rudskoy issued similar statements in March, saying unilateral airstrikes will target ceasefire violators – at the same time accusing Washington of failing to work cooperatively to implement Security Council 2254 provisions.

They call for ceasefire and diplomatic conflict resolution. Russia genuinely pursues both objectives. America obstructs them.

Endless fighting rages. Washington wants war, not peace, regime change called political transition. Geneva I, II and III failed. Nothing suggests better prospects ahead.

Russia’s failure to follow through on its commitment gave ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and other terrorist groups time to regroup, rearm and replenish their ranks – with help from Washington, NATO (notably Turkey), Israel, Saudi Arabia and other regional rogue states.

Russia’s repeated calls for Washington to work cooperatively against terrorism in Syria remain unanswered.

On Saturday, Sergey Lavrov again expressed concern about US delaying tactics. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said he and John Kerry continue discussing the situation on the ground without agreement, explaining:

…Lavrov has expressed concern (about US) attempts to delay resuming political talks for various artificial reasons, which was seen clearly during the UN Security Council briefing on Syria on June 3.

On June 5, Tass reported terrorist shelling of Syrian cities and towns in the last 24 hours alone killed over 270 civilians, injuring hundreds more.

The Russian Coordination Center said terrorist groups breached cessation of hostilities in the last 24 hours 10 times in Aleppo and Damascus – 626 times since ceasefire took effect at midnight last February 26.

Washington wants its terrorist foot soldiers protected, outrageously telling Russia to stop attacking Jabhat al-Nusra fighters, wanting heroic efforts by government forces obstructed and defeated.

The Obama administration continues providing terrorists with arms and other material support. Reports indicate increasing Russian airstrikes. There’s more.

According to Al Monitor, “the Russians this week disembarked ground forces and paratroopers in the port of Tartus to support more than 3,000 Russian volunteers dispatched to the region in the past few weeks, in a bid to revive coordination with the Syrian army.”

“This represents yet another additional indication that a wide-ranging operation is being prepared” – likely in Raqqa and Aleppo provinces.

According to Syrian sources, Russia’s joint command staff, handling aerial operations, returned to Khmeimim air base in likely preparation for new combat operations.

It’s time to deal with Washington and its rogue allies in the only language they understand – by resuming large-scale aerial strikes like earlier, intensifying them, regaining the offensive decisively, not letting up, smashing all terrorist elements failing to observe ceasefire.

Liberating Syria depends on it. Fiddling with Washington won’t end well.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-fiddles-while-syria-burns-no-peace-partner-in-washington/5529073

 

“Showcasing freedom of movement,” US military marches across Lithuania prior to large-scale Baltic NATO drills (VIDEO)

Posted by

0

From RT

6 Jun, 2016 01:26
Get short URL
© Ruptly
© Ruptly
A newly released video shows US armed forces marching through Lithuanian territory as they take part in “Dragoon Ride II,” a tactical march taking place ahead of NATO’s massive annual military drills that will be conducted in the Baltic States this year.

In the video, columns of US military vehicles, including Stryker M1126 Infantry Carriers and M1128 Mobile Gun Systems equipped with 105mm cannons, can be seen moving along the streets of Lithuanian cities.

Military columns consisting of 10-20 vehicles rumbled along the route from the city of Kalvarija to the city of Panevezys throughout the day, Lithuanian Defense Ministry said.

In the second part of the video, US military vehicles are seen parked near a shopping mall in Panevezys, as US soldiers show the vehicles, weapons, and equipment to locals.

Dragoon Ride II is a “2,200-kilometer [1,370-mile] tactical road march from the town of Vilseck, Germany to Estonia” that is being conducted from May 27 to June 15 ahead of the annual drills, according to the US army’s official website.

Its purpose is to “demonstrate a dynamic presence throughout the region by showcasing freedom of movement,” the statement on the website says.

he demonstration of military might features “1,400 Soldiers and 400 vehicles stopping in several cities to host public displays of their equipment along with their Allied counterparts.”

The march is being held in the run up to “Saber Strike 16,” a US-led multinational exercise that has been held annually in the EU since 2011. This year’s exercises will take place in the Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – from May 30 to June 22.

Nearly 10,000 service members from 13 states are to participate in the drills. Apart from major NATO forces and those of the host countries, troops and military equipment from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and the UK will also take part.

https://www.rt.com/news/345510-us-forces-march-lithuania/

Isn’t a “strike” another word for “attack” — basically an offensive move?

Moldovans protest against joint military exercises; NATO = War and Death

Posted by

0

From Sputnik
June 2, 2016

NATO equals war and death, Moldova, Sputnik 6-2-16

Moldovan youngsters hold anti-NATO banners during a protest in the border town of Sculeni, Moldova, Tuesday, May 3, 2016 against the May 3-20 joint US-Moldovan military exercises as less than 20 percent of Moldovans want to join the military alliance

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160602/1040675105/leave-nato-europeans-petition.html

“We’re people, not separatists or militants!” VIDEO

Posted by

0

Interview with former resident of Iliovaisk city. She is now superintendent-volunteer at a TAF — temporary accommodation facility — for refugees in Khartosyzsk, DPR.

February 3, 2016 –
Vox Populi Evo –

Partial transcript:

“If you have a chance to talk to us, residents of Donbass, in person, in Internet or via Skype, don’t miss this opportunity.

Because there is no one besides us who lived through this misery, nobody will tell you the truth, whatever bitter and hard truth it is. But this is the truth, and the truth is….what for?

For what are our cities being destroyed, and our children are dying?

For what are our elderly dying?

Why?

Why are you declaring us some sort of subhumans?

Why should we be deprived of the possibility to speak our native language?

…Despite the Minsk agreements, there is no truce. We don’t see it.

…People have nowhere to return to. They had everything, saving and building their whole life, building their lives, raising children. And they were deprived of all that in one instant. Simply taken away.

Like helpless kittens and puppies get thrown away, we were thrown away out of normal, stable life.

Interviewer: I represent international media resource Vox Populi. What would you like to say to our international viewers, people in Europe, America, Canada, Australia?

I’ll repeat the same thing: if you have a chance to get in touch with us, residents of Donbass, territory considered to be “seized by militants”, don’t miss the opportunity.

We are not separatists and not militants as we were declared for the whole world. We are just people who fight for their freedom and right to have their own opinion.”

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/video-were-people-not-separatists-or.html

Pro-Ukrainian journalist: Odessans massively share pro-Russian sentiment

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
5th June, 2016
 
The vast majority of Odessa residents share pro-Russian sentiment both in secret and explicitly. This conclusion was stated by Ukrainian journalist Roman Bochkala.
On Friday, the journalist published a post on his Facebook page where he, as a “true patriot”, is outraged by the mindset of his fellow citizens. He noted that he has recently met people sympathetic to Russia too often.
“Maybe it’s their terrible roads or their misery (quote from Ukrainian propaganda about Russia – O.R),  I don’t know exactly what pulls these people to the Russian Federation, but it is a fact: “Kiev is to blame for the war, we just need to pick off this gang (actual power – O.R). Why do they forbid Russian films”, wrote Bochkala on his page.
 
In addition, the journalist posted a photo of a man on a bicycle with the inscription “Russia” on his windbreaker, with two children on the trunk.
 
“I met this one on the bicycle in Kiliya district. Of course, if two kids were not on his bike, our conversation would have been different,” said Bochkala. However, later, under his same post, several people asked, What kind of conversation would it have been? Would you have burnt him like in Odessa tradition?”
Apparently, inhabitants of Odessa began to grow tired of the incessant clowning in government circles. In the end, we can continue to have propaganda, public relations, debates, and political clashes, but sometimes there is need to deal with the case. We can’t go very far only with promises and populism.
Recall how the Governor of Odessa region Mikhail Saakashvili almost brought a situation to the city that could have catalysed civil war, at the time when there were mass protests against the mayor Trukhanov. Then at this time he spoke about the future disintegration of the state.
Earlier, Pravda.Ru reported about the unwillingness of Saakashvili to at least identify himself with Odessa people’s aspirations and preferences. On the day of the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of Odessa from Nazi invaders, on April 10th, when citizens took to the streets to honor the memory of Soviet soldiers who returned the freedom of the hero-city at the cost of their lives, the Governor was pointedly taking care of “more important” business.
It is important to note that the current Ukrainian authorities certainly are aware of the real mood of the citizens, just like they were aware when they were discussing the situation about Crimea in 2014 at the Council meeting. Here’s another question: is the junta aware that their power can’t be held on the tip of the bayonets for a very long time?

Double standards regarding international law; the “Happy Easter” bombings of Belgrade

Posted by

0

From Voice of Russia 

West countries had their interests in bombing Yugoslavia – expert
April 16, 2014
by Jay Johnson

West countries had their interests in bombing Yugoslavia - expert

Photo: RIA Novosti

On April 16, 1944, British and US allied forces carried out air attacks in the capital of Yugoslavia, Belgrade. That day the country was celebrating the Orthodox Easter. The bombing was carried out by 600 aircraft and lasted for three days. More than 1,000 civilians died as a result of the attack. One of the unexploded bombs was said to have the inscription, “Happy Easter”. The Voice of Russia talked to Boris Malagursky, a Serbian-Canadian film director, producer and screenwriter.

The situation was repeated on Easter in 1999 when US-led NATO forces carried out another bombing on several civilian targets. NATO ignored the Pope’s request to not bomb Belgrade during this holy day.

How did the allied US and UK forces explain their bombing of Belgrade in 1944?

It is an interesting fact, you talked about how many times Belgrade was bombed, and interesting fact is that Belgrade was destroyed over 40 times in the history, and whatever the Nazis bombed in 1940s, there was Yugoslavia ally in 1944 because they were fighting Germans that had occupied Belgrade and Yugoslavia. And it is interesting that in 1941 it was April 6th when Nazis bombed Belgrade and then again in 1944 it was bombed by the west who wanted to liberate it. It ended up destroying most of the city.

Why, do you think, the international community turned a blind eye on the death of 1,160 civilians as a result of those attacks?

It is really interesting that you mentioned Easter holiday. There is one photo of a bomb that didn’t explode that was dropped by NATO that had a writing “Happy Easter”. First you have to define what the international community is. You look at the western world and you think of them as an international community, and whatever they think is right, they basically propagate it to international community. In a sense not everybody agrees with NATO bombing. Western countries think this is a price for future intervention.

Now it is interesting that suddenly when a part of Ukraine declared independence and decided to join Russia, in case of Crimea, suddenly the so-called international community is in shock, how can somebody do that. Other countries started talking about international law, and I thought to myself where those talks about international law were before. It is no wonder that they turned the blind eye. They had their interests in bombing Yugoslavia. In case of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine they are not very happy about what is going on. So, they talk about international law. It is a game of double standards that has been going on for a while now.

http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2014_04_16/West-countries-had-their-interests-in-bombing-Yugoslavia-expert-0020/