Author: admin

Protest the U.S. Navy’s war games in Alaska

Posted by

0

Two excellent articles on the situation:
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/war_games_set_to_begin_today_ in_the_pristine_gulf_of_alaska/v
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-navy-gears-up-for-huge-war-games-in-alaska-wildlife-and-environment-be-damned/

A letter of protest to the US Navy can be sent directly from the Eyak Preservation Council’s website, with a letter that can be customized.

From the Eyak Preservation Council
http://www.eyakpreservationcouncil.org/navy-training-facts/write-letter-navy-2/

Make Your Voice Heard!

Send a letter to the Navy 

Background: In June 2015 the US Navy is going to conduct military training activities in the Gulf of Alaska to “achieve and maintain military readiness.” (Source www.goaeis.com).

The Navy is planning to use active and passive sonar for submarine exercises, plus a wide variety of live weapons and explosives (bombs, missiles, torpedoes, etc.) This area is vital habitat for many species of marine life including whales and salmon. The water here supports the most sustainable and economically valuable fisheries left in the USA.

If these trainings occur it will set a dangerous precedent for unchecked military expansion in the most pristine waters left on earth.

Please send the letter below to let the Navy know that you oppose the use of live ordnance and sonar in the Gulf of Alaska.

This letter will be sent to: 

– Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert
– Commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Harris Harris Jr.

Copies of this letter will be sent to:

Alaska Command Leadership:

–       Lt. Gen. Russell Handy
–       Maj. Gen. Michael Shields
–       CMSgt. Gay L.C. Veale
Tommie Baker – Public Affairs at JBER
Jeffrey Fee – Director of Training, Readiness and Exercises at JBER
Jon Montague – Tribal Coordinator at JBER

This letter is at the Council’s link above. The letter can be customized.

Dear Admiral Greenert & Admiral Harris,

I would like to request that the Navy’s ‘Northern Edge’ combined training exercise scheduled for June 2015 be postponed until after mid-September and not use any live ordnance or sonar in Gulf of Alaska waters. There is no question that military preparedness drills are of national importance. However, I am gravely concerned about the risk and potential damage to Alaska’s subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries, marine habitats, fish and wildlife resources, and the regional economy.

The coastline around the GOA is home to many coastal communities and Alaska Native people who rely on marine and freshwater resources. The Temporary Maritime Activities Area is 20-24 nautical miles from communities on Kodiak Island, and other communities on the South Central Alaskan coast including Cordova, Valdez, Homer, Seward, and Yakutat.

These exercises are planned during the most prolific breeding and migratory periods of the marine supported life in the region (salmon, whales, birds and more).

The waters of the GOA include Essential Fish Habitat for many species of subsistence and commercial fisheries, including those found in Prince William Sound, which has still not fully recovered from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The area of the TMAA also supports the most sustainable and economically valuable fisheries in the USA. Commercial fishing is the largest private sector employer in Alaska, providing some 80,000 jobs as well as a healthy food source. Nearly 100% of sockeye salmon in the USA comes from Alaska. Alaska is also home to the largest wild sockeye salmon run in the world, Bristol Bay.

The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement includes a long list of potential stressors and effects of these trainings on fish (disruption of habitat; exposure to chemical by-products; disturbance, injury, or death from the shock (pressure) wave; acoustic impacts; and indirect effects including those on prey species and other components of the food web). As the Navy states in its EIS, no studies have established the short-or long-term population-level effects of cumulative exposure of fish to any type of sound.

Given this information, I/we are extremely concerned about the potential impact the Navy’s proposed plan may have on Alaska’s fish and wildlife resources, Native subsistence activities, commercial and recreational fisheries and the regional economy. I formally object the Navy’s use of live ordnance and sonar in the GOA this June and request that all trainings be postponed until after mid September and be moved a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles offshore.

Sincerely,

 

U.S. Navy’s massive war games in pristine Gulf of Alaska — wildlife and ocean be damned

Posted by

0

The war “games” run from June 15 – June 26, 2015.

War Games Set to Begin Today in the Pristine Gulf of Alaska
by Sonia Luokkala – June 15, 2015
Earth Island Journal

As the Navy unleashes 6,000 personnel for training exercises, local communities protest impacts on wildlife and fisheries

Today the US Navy plans to unleash 6,000 sailors, soldiers, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard members along with three Navy Destroyers, 200 aircrafts, untold weaponry, and a submarine to converge in war games in the Gulf of Alaska. The training exercises are scheduled to continue through June 26.

The Navy’s choice of the Gulf of Alaska – one of the most pristine places left on Earth, and at the peak of migration and breeding periods of marine life – has left locals baffled and upset.

In the last month, protests have been held in Cordova, Kodiak, and Homer, Alaska. Emily Stolarcyk, a program manager with the Eyak Preservation Council, an environmental and social change organization based in Cordova, says local communities have never before united in such a way, pointing to the 100-plus fishing vessels that joined the protest against the Navy.

“It was incredible to see the commercial fleet turnout and unite like that with tons of support from people on shore as well,”
she says.

Regional tribal villages have also been vocal in their opposition, worried that the Navy’s trainings could affect their subsistence foods. Several tribes have passed resolutions opposing the trainings and others are requesting formal government-to-government consultations regarding the plans. Local people are also concerned about the possible impacts on marine life.

According to Stolarcyk, the Navy has not been receptive to these concerns. “The Navy is refusing to negotiate at all with local communities,” she says.

The Navy has conducted Northern Edge training exercises in Alaska every two years since 1994. In 2011, the Navy expanded the scope of their training exercises and the use of the highly controversial low-frequency active sonar was authorized for the first time. The 2013 training was cancelled due to the federal government’s budget crisis.

The Gulf of Alaska training area includes more than 42,000 nautical miles of surface and subsurface waters. The area of impact spans more than 8,429 nautical miles, including Alaskan Marine Protected Areas and NOAA designated Fisheries Protected Areas

Residents of Homer, Alaska have been vocal in their opposition to the Navy’s war games in the Gulf of Alaska.

The pristine waters of the Gulf of Alaska provide critical habitat for over 383 species of marine life. Its nutrient-rich waters call forth as many as 20 different species of whales every summer, including three different species of elusive beaked whales that are especially sensitive to the effects of the Navy’s active sonar.

Training exercises will be carried out simultaneously with the key breeding and migratory season for marine life in the area, including five species of Pacific Salmon that return from the ocean to lay their eggs in the rivers and streams of their origin.

Continue reading →

European Parliament surrenders to Washington on Russia policy

Posted by

0

By Stephen Lendman
Posted on Global Research, June 13, 2015

The European Parliament, Council of the European Union and European Commission share EU legislative functions separate from individual member states’ right of initiative power to propose and enact new laws for their respective countries.

During a June 10 plenary session in Strasbourg (two days ahead of Russia’s National Day), MEP’s adopted a resolution (494 to 135 with 69 abstentions) urging EU reassessment of relations with Moscow because of Ukraine crisis conditions.

The measure includes a litany of “Russia-bashing” accusations and Big Lies claiming:

  • “Russia’s direct and indirect involvement in the armed conflict in Ukraine…”
  • it’s annexing Crimea;
  • violating Georgian territory; and
  • regional economic coercion and political destabilization.

“(B)ecause of its action in Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine, (Russia) can no longer be treated as, or considered, a “strategic partner,” the resolution said.

It urged countering Russian hard truths irresponsibly called propaganda – wanting important sources of news, information and analysis like RT International and Sputnik News replaced by Western-style government sponsored disinformation and Big Lies on issues mattering most.

Fact: Russia-bashing has nothing to do with its nonexistent interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs, violating its sovereignty, annexing its territory, or waging war.

Fact: It has everything to do with attacking Russia’s sovereign independence and vitally important opposition to America’s imperial agenda.

Fact: It’s about promoting regime change – wanting pro-Western stooge governance replacing Putin.

Fact: It’s wanting Russian resources and population exploited – strip-mining the country for profit, transforming its people into serfs.

Fact: It’s about European nations partnering with America’s dirty agenda at the expense of their own interests – risking another major war on their territory.

Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin said “(e)verybody understands who tells the Europeans what they should do, and why.”

Fact: It’s about America wanting other nations doing its fighting and dying for it to enrich its privileged interests more than already.

On Thursday, US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said America needs “a network of allies.”

“We really want to play an away game, and we need teammates to do it. The very last thing we want is to play a home game.”

Fact: It’s about letting police state justice override fundamental human and civil rights.

Fact: It’s about replacing democracy with money-controlled tyranny.

Fact: It’s about creating a world more unfit to live in than already.

Fact: It’s a loud and clear call to everyone to unite against a monster threatening fundamental liberties too precious to lose.

The European Parliament’s resolution was based on a report by hardline Lithuanian MEP Gabrielius Laandsbergis irresponsibly saying:

“With its aggression against Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, the Russian leadership has put our policies at a crossroads. It’s up to the Kremlin to decide now which way it will go – cooperation or deepening alienation.”

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Russian direct or indirect aggression in Ukraine. If any existed it would have been revealed long ago.

During his 13th annual marathon Q & A session in April, Putin forthrightly said “(i)n regard to the question of whether or not our troops are in Ukraine, I’ll say directly and definitely that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.”

An April 16 Kremlin tweet said “Putin on the rumours that Russian troops are deployed in #Ukraine: I want to make this clear, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.”

Russia alone continues forthright efforts for diplomatic conflict resolution. Anti-Russian propaganda drowns out hard truths. It exceeds the worst of Cold War vitriol. It risks the unthinkable – possible confrontation between the world’s two most formidable nuclear powers.

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.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/european-parliament-surrenders-to-washington-on-russia-policy/5455362

New York Times: U.S. poised to put heavy weaponry in East Europe

Posted by

0

“Russia’s increasingly aggressive actions around NATO’s borders…”

NATO keeps moving its borders up to Russia’s borders.

“Professor [Mark] Galeotti said. ‘This is about telling Russia that you’re getting closer to a real red line.’”

NATO’s red line is a noose, drawing tighter and tighter around Russia and any country that defies the Anglo-American alliance.

This article is typical mainstream US “journalism”. Unless a reader follows the extensive equipment buildup that has been taking place for months,  and the ongoing, intensifying US/NATO military exercises in the region,  they would conclude from this article that the US and NATO have only a weak force in Europe.

June 13, 2015
By ERIC SCHMITT and STEVEN LEE MYERS

 

RIGA, Latvia — In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is poised to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, American and allied officials say.

The proposal, if approved, would represent the first time since the end of the Cold War that the United States has stationed heavy military equipment in the newer NATO member nations in Eastern Europe that had once been part of the Soviet sphere of influence. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine have caused alarm and prompted new military planning in NATO capitals.

It would be the most prominent of a series of moves the United States and NATO have taken to bolster forces in the region and send a clear message of resolve to allies and to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, that the United States would defend the alliance’s members closest to the Russian frontier.

After the expansion of NATO to include the Baltic nations in 2004, the United States and its allies avoided the permanent stationing of equipment or troops in the east as they sought varying forms of partnership with Russia.

“This is a very meaningful shift in policy,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and the former supreme allied commander of NATO, who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “It provides a reasonable level of reassurance to jittery allies, although nothing is as good as troops stationed full-time on the ground, of course.”

Continue reading →

‘Texas’ with the Tuv family in Donetsk (video)

Posted by

1

From Fort Russ

June 5th, 2015
By: Essence of Time EoT and “Texas”

In this heart wrenching episode, Texas visits the Tuv family in the hospital.  They have a special message for the UAF.

<iframe width=”320″ height=”266″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/aDmNMH3iKsE&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Note from Fort Russ Team:  We have spoken with ‘Texas’, one of the better known American volunteers fighting for the DPR in Donbass.  We made a deal to regularly feature his reports from the front, as produced by Essence of Time TV. 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/06/texas-with-tuv-family-donetsk-dpr-issue.html

Leaked documents expose American scheme arming Ukrainian Nazis through Bulgaria

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

Barrett M107A1

June 4th, 2015
Segodnia.ru (published June 3rd, 2015)
Translated by Kristina Rus

Documents show Washington delivered [at least] half a million dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine

Our editors obtained a curious document of the U.S. State Department, which directly indicates active arms deliveries by the United States to Ukraine through Bulgaria:
The scheme is as follows. Company AMI GLOBAL SECURITY, LLC exports from Portland, Oregon 52 silencers to the sniper rifle Barrett (cost of 52 silencers – $139 100) and 15 packages of spare parts for these deadly weapons (cost – $363 840). The total cost of delivery, therefore, is $502 940 – half a million dollars.

Silencer installed on a Barrett M107A1

Spare parts kit for Barrett M107A1:

In the column “Country of Ultimate Destination” it proudly says “UKRAINE”, and under the “Foreign End-User” – “National Guard of Ukraine, Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine”.

However, on the way the goods will pass another country. The intermediary in this transaction (identified as “Foreign Consignee”) is a company Bulcomers KS Ltd., located in the city of Sofia (Bulgaria). It appears such a mediator is necessary for a cover-up and a conversion of the goods into some “auto parts”. And in the end, many goods are delivered to Ukraine from Bulgaria. Who will inspect all of them? But deliveries to Ukraine from the US of this nature are guaranteed to attract attention.

Thus, in fact, the United States began to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. Given the demands of these rifles for weather conditions and operation, the parts for them are essential for active use. And why does the Ukrainian national guard need these rifles and their parts during a ceasefire? That’s right – for battle, that is, for a violation of this ceasefire, which are recorded every day. In addition, knowing the “life and customs” of national guardsmen, you can imagine how many bullets fired through the silencers provided by the USA and Bulgaria, will end up in the bodies of civilians of Novorossia. The picture is more than disturbing: the State Department is actually churning out licenses for murder during a ceasefire, and brothers-slavs Bulgarians “bring the cartridges,” passed by American benefactors. In the long term nothing can change this sad state of affairs, unless it’s widely publicized…

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/06/leaked-documents-expose-american-scheme.html

From AMI Global Security’s website:

AMI GLOBAL SECURITY, LLC is registered with the US Department of State Bureau of Political and Military Affairs as a defense trade and manufacturer’s  exporter.  We process export permits of defense related articles for  internationally based clients.  We possess a Federal Firearms License  issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. [BATF]

We provide a full  scope of professional security consulting services ranging from  procurement, acquisition, contracting and delivery of equipment.  AMI GLOBAL SECURITY, LLC is a registered United Nations vendor and registered US Department of Defense  Sub-Contractor.  We maintain full compliance with the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, [ITAR].

The reversal of Kerry’s warning to Poroshenko came from Obama, not Nuland

Posted by

0

Here Eric Zuesse writes a correction to his article June 7 http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-sidelines-kerry-on-ukraine-policy/5454038

War and Peace in Donbass: The Reversal of Kerry’s Ukraine Statement Came from Obama, Not Nuland
By Eric Zuesse, June 10, 2015
Posted on Global Research

When Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland on May 15th contradicted her boss John Kerry’s statement of three days earlier, in which Kerry had warned Ukraine’s President Petro Petroshenko not to violate the Minsk II agreement, and not to invade Crimea, and not to re-invade Donbass, the source of this reversal was actually U.S. President Barack Obama, and not Victoria Nuland (as the State Department had reported).

When I first noticed the contradiction as I reported on May 21st, Nuland’s statement on May 15th was being quoted by Ukraine’s Interfax News Agency, without any link to its U.S. source. I looked but didn’t right away find its U.S. source, but the official Ukrainian news agency would not quote a U.S. Government official falsely, and so I went with the story on that basis.

Now that I have found the U.S. source in the full May 15th U.S. State Department press briefing in Washington, there can be little doubt that Nuland had actually been instructed by the White House to be quoted there as issuing this reversal of Kerry’s statement.

The press conference, by the Department’s press spokesperson Jeff Rathke, opened with an introductory statement in which he asserted:

Assistant Secretary Nuland’s ongoing visit to Kyiv and her discussions with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and President Poroshenko reaffirm the United States’ full and unbreakable support for Ukraine’s government, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. We continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.

That’s all that was reported by Ukraine’s Interfax. Much later in the press conference, however, after reporters had asked him many questions about Iran, Burundi, Japan, Iraq, and other countries, but not Ukraine, one reporter finally asked a single (but unrelated) question about Ukraine, and, after answering it, Rathke interrupted the next reporter’s question, which was about Cuba, to ask all of the assembled press-stenographers, “I’m sorry, any other questions on Ukraine?” and, after not getting any such question, he simply went directly on to say:

I would – if I could take the opportunity, I would also just want to go back to what I said at the top, and just to review what has happened this week with regard to Ukraine. Secretary Kerry was in Sochi at the start of the week, where the Secretary was clear with Russia – President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov – about Ukraine and about the consequences for failing to uphold the Minsk commitments. Right after that discussion, he called President Poroshenko to update him and to reaffirm our support for Ukraine. He went from there immediately to the meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Antalya, where he briefed them and also underscored the United States’ commitment when he met with Foreign Minister Klimkin in Antalya. Assistant Secretary Nuland is in Kyiv right now, and the message of all of these engagements is that we stand for the implementation of Minsk. We stand in support of the Ukrainian Government, President Poroshenko, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, and the Ukrainian people. And I wanted just to make sure that I took that opportunity.

In other words: Kerry, after his statement on May 12th to Putin in Sochi, saying, about Poroshenko’s repeated warnings that Ukraine will retake both Crimea and Donbass —

“we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.”

— was taken to the woodshed by his boss, Obama; and the best way that could be decided upon to issue the reversal was by this indirect one, which would be sourced to his subordinate Nuland, so that Kerry himself wouldn’t have to be the person contradicting himself, and so that the blame for the actually anti-Minsk-agreement position of the U.S. President himself would go instead to Nuland, whom everybody already knows to be a “neo-conservative,” and a hardliner against Russia — and would definitely not go to the Nobel Peace Prize winning U.S. President, Barack Obama.

In other words: the President, who had been behind the February 2014 coup that instigated Russia’s defensive measure of protecting its main naval base (ever since 1783) in Crimea and so Russia’s accepting the overwhelming desire of Crimea’s residents on 16 March 2014 to become again a part of Russia (of which Crimea had always been a part until 1954), wanted to move forward again with the war in Ukraine, and with the resulting sanctions against Russia, all of which were part of Obama’s plan ever since at least the summer of 2013, when the organizing of the overthrow of Yanukovych had started at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.

The Minsk II agreement had been engineered by Merkel and Hollande of the EU, against the wishes and without the participation of Obama, and this is the sort of thing that Nuland had had in mind about the EU when she had told Geoffrey Pyatt, America’s Kiev Ambassador, on 4 February 2014, “F—k the EU!” and instructed him then whom to get appointed to run Ukraine after the coup (“Yats” Yatsenyuk), which coup then culminated 18 days later, onFebruary 22nd. (Yatsenyuk received the official appointment on February 26th.)

This likewise explains the reason why Ukraine’s President Poroshenko, as I reported on June 7th, said again, on June 5th, that Ukraine will retake both Crimea and Donbass. He has Obama’s wind to his sails on this (and not only Nuland’s).

So: the war will continue, as Obama wants, and probably the resistance to it on the part of the EU will continue to be ineffectual and half-hearted.

And the sanctions against Russia, for responding as it must to Obama’s actions, will also continue, which is also part of Obama’s original plan. (What was not part of Obama’s plan, however, was the continued survival of millions of the residents in Donbass, the former region of Ukraine that had voted 90%+ for the man, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Obama overthrew. But Obama evidently has not given up his goal of eliminating them.)

The people who say that Obama doesn’t have a plan are simply ignoring it. The evidence is very clear what the plan is. And it is succeeding: it’s a war-plan against Russia.

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, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-peace-in-donbass-the-reversal-of-kerrys-ukraine-statement-came-from-obama-not-nuland/5454561

US-led coalition supposedly against ISIS, yet warplanes “mistakenly” strike Iraqi bases in Fallujah, killing 6 Iraqi soldiers

Posted by

0

FARS News Agency 6 June 2015
Global Research, June 07, 2015

Fighter jets of the US-led coalition against ISIL once again struck the Iraqi forces’ positions in the province of Anbar, in Western Iraq, on Saturday.

The US-led coalition warplanes hit the bases of Iraqi army’s Hezbollah battalions in Fallujah in Anbar province, killing 6 soldiers and injuring 8 others.

In early May, the anti-ISIL coalition forces struck the position of Iraq’s popular forces near Baghdad, killing a number of volunteer forces.

The US-led coalition warplanes hit an arms production workshop of the popular forces near the Iraqi capital, destroying the workshop and its ammunition completely.

Two members of Iraq’s popular forces were killed in the attack.

The US has repeatedly struck the popular forces’ positions in different parts of Iraq.

On March 29, the US fighter jets struck the positions of Iraq’s popular forces during their fierce clashes with ISIL terrorists near Tikrit, injuring a number of fighters.

The US and coalition forces conducted eight airstrikes near Tikrit, but they hit the popular forces’ positions instead of ISIL.

In February, an Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that the US airplanes still continue to airdrop weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists.

“The US planes have dropped weapons for the ISIL terrorists in the areas under ISIL control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIL control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi told FNA.

He noted that eyewitnesses in Al-Havijeh of Kirkuk province had witnessed the US airplanes dropping several suspicious parcels for ISIL terrorists in the province.

“Two coalition planes were also seen above the town of Al-Khas in Diyala and they carried the Takfiri terrorists to the region that has recently been liberated from the ISIL control,” Al-Jaberi said.

Meantime, Head of Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli also disclosed that the anti-ISIL coalition’s planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL in Salahuddin, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces.

In January, al-Zameli underlined that  the coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.

“There are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition’s military aid to ISIL terrorists through air(dropped cargoes),” he told FNA at the time.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940316001210

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-led-coalition-against-isis-warplanes-mistakenly-strike-iraqi-army-bases-in-fallujah-kill-iraqi-soldiers/5454005

President Obama sides with Victoria Nuland on Ukraine. Will John Kerry resign?

Posted by

0

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, June 7, 2015

kerry_0

On May 21st, I headlined “Secretary of State John Kerry v. His Subordinate Victoria Nuland, Regarding Ukraine,” and quoted John Kerry’s May 12th warning to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to cease his repeated threats to invade Crimea and re-invade Donbass, two former regions of Ukraine, which had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new regime that was imposed on Ukraine in violent clashes during February 2014. (These were regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the Ukrainian President who had just been overthrown.)

They didn’t like him being violently tossed out and replaced by his enemies.) Kerry said then that, regarding Poroshenko,

“we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.”

Also quoted there was Kerry’s subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, saying the exact opposite, that we “reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.” I noted, then that, “The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama.” However, Obama instead has sided with Nuland on this.

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, bannered, on June 5th, “Poroshenko: Ukraine Will ‘Do Everything’ To Retake Crimea’,” and reported that

President Petro Poroshenko has vowed to seek Crimea’s return to Ukrainian rule. … Speaking at a news conference on June 5, … Poroshenko said that ‘every day and every moment, we will do everything to return Crimea to Ukraine.’”

Poroshenko was also quoted there as saying, ”It is important not to give Russia a chance to break the world’s pro-Ukrainian coalition,” which indirectly insulted Kerry for his having criticized Poroshenko’s warnings that he intended to invade Crimea and Donbass.

Right now, the Minsk II ceasefire has broken down and there are accusations on both sides that the other is to blame. What cannot be denied is that at least three times, on April 30th, then on May 11th, and then on June 5th, Poroshenko has repeatedly promised to invade Crimea, which wasn’t even mentioned in the Minsk II agreement; and that he was also promising to re-invade Donbass, something that is explicitly prohibited in this agreement. Furthermore, America’s President, Barack Obama, did not fire Kerry’s subordinate, Nuland, for her contradicting her boss on this important matter.

How will that be taken in European capitals? Kerry was reaffirming the position of Merkel and Hollande, the key shapers of the Minsk II agreement; and Nuland was nullifying them. Obama now has sided with Nuland on this; it’s a slap in the face to the EU: Poroshenko can continue ignoring Kerry and can blatantly ignore the Minsk II agreement; and Obama tacitly sides with Poroshenko and Nuland, against Kerry.

The personalities here are important: On 4 February 2014, in the very same phone-conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, America’s Ambassador in Ukraine, in which Nuland had instructed Pyatt to get “Yats” Yatsenyuk appointed to lead Ukraine after the coup (which then occurred 18 days later), she also famously said “F—k  the EU!” Obama is now seconding that statement of hers.

In effect, Obama is telling the EU that they can get anything they want signed, but that he would still move forward with his own policy, regardless of whether or not they like it.

Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit — which would force the EU’s hand regarding whether to continue with U.S. policy there — or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate on a key issue of U.S. foreign policy. If he stays on while Nuland also does, then, in effect, Kerry is being cut out of policymaking on Europe and Asia (Nuland’s territory), altogether, and the EU needs to communicate directly with Obama on everything, or else to communicate with Nuland as if she and not Kerry were the actual U.S. Secretary of State. But if Kerry instead quits, then the pressure would be placed on EU officials: whether to continue with the U.S., or to reject U.S. anti-Russia policy, and to move forward by leaving NATO, and all that that entails?

If they then decide to stay with the U.S., after that “F—k the EU!” and then this; then, the European countries are clearly just U.S. colonies. This would be far more embarrassing to those leaders than John Kerry would be embarrassed by his simply resigning from the U.S. State Department. It might even turn the tide and force the Ukrainian Government to follow through with all of its commitments under the Minsk II accords.

It would be the most effective thing for Kerry to do at this stage. But, it would lose him his position as a (now merely nominal) member of Obama’s Cabinet.

The way this turns out will show a lot, about John Kerry. The nations of Europe already know everything they need to know about Barack Obama. If Kerry quits, he’ll have respect around the world. If he stays, he’ll be just another Colin Powell.

The ball is in Kerry’s court, and everyone will see how he plays it — and what type of man he is (and isn’t).

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, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-sidelines-kerry-on-ukraine-policy/5454038