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

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

Vice President Joe Biden
Strobe Talbott, President of Brookings Institution

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

HOST
00:00:13
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:00:27
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:02:32
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:24:33
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:24:41
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:25:04
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:25:17
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:26:59
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:28:40
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:28:46
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:28:59
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:30:34
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:30:51
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:36:45
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:37:00
Unidentified Speaker

THANK YOU.

00:37:03
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:37:08
Unidentified Speaker

CHATTER] [CAPTIONS

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

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

00:37:18
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:37:31
Unidentified Speaker

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

Уроки «Андижанского расстрела»

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

«Андижанский расстрел»

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– способствовать ослаблению влияния Содружества независимых государств и России;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Специально для «Столетия»
Copyright © Stoletie.RU

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

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

More evidence of American plots.

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

From Fort Russ

Stoletie

May 26, 2015
Igor Pankratenko
Stoletie
Translated by Kristina Rus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Voice of Sevastopol, May 26, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Komorowski supported sanctions, lost election

From Fort Russ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Fort Russ

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

Moscow is preparing for active defense in Transnistria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex-MP: Ukraine’s default is a culmination of a plan

Horrifying asset seizure which is legally sanctioned. Which countries are next? Privatization or bankruptcy — either way, the forces of the “free market” and “democracy” get the assets of the people. Truly, the end of freedom.

From Fort Russ

May 21, 2015
Ruposters.ru
Translated by Kristina Rus
 
A deal on the blood: ex-Rada deputy forecasts a tragic finale of the conflict

The decision of the Verkhovna Rada not to pay debts means the default is close, thinks the ex-MP, the former head of the the State Commission of Financial Services [of Ukraine], Vasily Volga, reports “PolitNavigator”.

Vasily Volga

“First of all, it is necessary to distinguish two types of defaults. Technical default and total default. In case of a technical default the country declares that it cannot pay its obligations, and asks the creditors to change the terms of contracts of those liabilities. Perfect technical default is a partial write off of debt, a deferral of payments on principal for something like ten years and a receipt of a new credit to pay interest on loans. A couple of years ago just such a default was experienced by Greece”, – he said.

Volga called the situation in Ukraine up to now – a “gift from heaven”, when “they forgive everything and even give more money”.

He explained what would a total default mean for the country. “This is a situation when lenders refuse to write off and restructure debts. In this case, the creditors have the right to demand the arrest of all foreign property and accounts of a bankrupt state. Also, the creditors, to satisfy their requirements, have the right to foreclose on the assets of the debtor state within the state. And, of course, you can forget about any loans from any international financial institutions. The national currency is instantly devalued. The value of state assets will plunge towards zero. Social programs are destroyed“, – said Volga.

In this case the one who owns the debt of a bankrupt state, becomes the owner of everything for nothing. “I think we should not forget about the information spread in the press a couple of months ago about the Rothschilds buying the sovereign debt of Ukraine”, – said the politician.

He noted that if the default of the country will be total, then “we will witness a grand buyout, which was prepared by war and the murder of tens of thousands of my fellow citizens“. “The culmination is near. We will see everything. All the cards will be revealed,” –  assured Volga.

U.S. military officials present results from war game exercise on U.S.-Russia relations

May 18, 2015
Center for Strategic and International Studies

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326105-1/discussion-future-military-policy-strategy
1 hour, 51 minutes

The transcript for this event is at the link.

“Army and Air Force officials presented their findings from a war game exercise that focused on potential future policy and strategy for U.S.-Russia relations and recent Russian aggression. Participants presented their findings and recommendations from a wargame exercise focused on U.S. policy and strategy.”

Computer programing coined the term “garbage in, garbage out”.

These officials sound surprised by events in Ukraine and in Crimea, as if those events happened out of the blue. They admit no connection to the coup d’état, no involvement for decades of U.S. support for Ukrainian nationalists, and no U.S. and investor money poured into Ukraine creating discord. Their history timeline starts with Crimea and East Ukraine turmoil. They seem to feel they did a lot of work in “figuring out” Russia and Russia’s possible future moves, but it’s in terms of Russia doing something to Ukraine or Europe. These officials in their war game seem completely separated from and oblivious to actual events — a very dangerous situation for everyone, given the stakes involved.

How much of this is willful ignorance and playing the victim, and how much is intentional PR and public manipulation — psyops?

U.S. officials cannot possibly formulate realistic policy objectives when their foundation is sand and when they seem so unwilling to get rid of their blinders.

From the C-SPAN transcript:

“WE’RE IN U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE BUT IN SPECIAL PROGRAM CALLED CARLYLE SCHOLARS PROGRAM. CARLYLE SCHOLARS PROGRAM IS — THE IDEA BEHIND IT CORE CURRICULUM IN FOUR MONTHS INSTEAD OF EIGHT TO NINE MONTHS, JUST CONDENSE IT A LITTLE BIT SO WE’VE GOT MORE TIME TO DO RESEARCH, ENGAGEMENTS
WITH THINK TANKS OR STATE DEPARTMENT…WE STARTED 2014 TO STUDY INTO RUSSIA. THE RELATIONSHIP — EUROPE RUSSIA, ACTUALLY. IT LINKED INTO SEVERAL PROGRAMS WE WERE DOING ALREADY AT U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE. OVER TIME WE HAD MEETINGS WITH MANY RESPECTED EXPERTS FROM THINK TANKS, UNIVERSITIES, DOD, STATE DEPARTMENT AS WELL [–the voices from within the US security apparatus system]

…WE STARTED WITH FIRST UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM, SO WE LOOKED INTO PUTIN’S STRATEGY, TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT… [Listening to his speeches and press conferences, as well as those of Mr. Lavrov, would have been a good place to start; they are easily available on the internet.]

…WE HAD MANY MEETINGS HERE IN WASHINGTON WITH THINK TANKS TO DISCUSS OUR VIEW ON WHAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM WAS LIKE. [Think tanks like Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation???]

IT WAS VERY  INTERESTING TO FIND OUT REALLY THEY [policymakers] WERE CONFRONTING A SEA CHANGE IN U.S. POLICY. IT WAS CLEAR TO THEM THAT SOMETHING HAD CHANGED IN THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT. THE TOUGH PART WAS FIGURING OUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT. THEY REALIZED LAST TWO DECADES AT LEAST OUR RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA IN GENERAL BASED ON THE CONCEPT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO BECOME A NORMAL COUNTRY WITHIN EUROPEAN SECURITY ARCHITECTURE, EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THAT RUSSIA WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PLAY BY THE RULES [U.S. attitude is patronizing, disrespectful, and out of touch with reality] AND U.S. COULD TREAT THEM AS THEY TREAT ANY OTHER REGIONAL POWER AROUND THE WORLD. [not a world power, and not a power in balance with the United States]

AFTER THE SEIZURE OF CRIMEA AND WHEN CONFLICT ERUPTED IN EASTERN UKRAINE [surprise, surprise] IT BECOME CLEAR THAT SET OF ASSUMPTIONS WAS NO LONGER VALID.EVERYONE COULD SEE THAT SEA CHANGE. HARD PART BETWEEN PLAYERS TRYING TO FORMULATE IN THIS ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT WHAT SHOULD U.S. POLICY BE, FIGURE OUT HOW TO COMPETE WITH RUSSIA.

IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO JETTISON THOSE SET OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LONG RANGE POLICIES THE U.S. WORK WITH FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. WE CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVE FUTURES WITHIN THE WAR GAME. IT BECAME CLEAR FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, THE U.S. WOULD HAVE TO BE — WOULD HAVE TO MANAGE STRATEGIC COMPETITION WITH RUSSIA RATHER THAN TREAT RUSSIA AS ANOTHER NORMAL
COUNTRY IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

There is much more.

Participants:

  • Karen Briggman Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
  • Joseph Hilbert Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
  • Gert-Jan Kooij Lieutenant Colonel, Royal Netherlands Army
  • Andrew C. Kuchins Director, Center for Strategic and International Studies->Russia and Eurasia Program
  • Christopher Lay Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force
  • James McNaughton Carlisle Scholar, U.S. Army War College

 

 

Why are we paying the NFL to help the Pentagon recruit troops?

By Dave Zirin
From The Nation
May 13, 2015

New York National Guard members are sworn in during halftime of a game between the Buffalo Bills and the Kansas City Chiefs. (AP Photo/Bill Wippert)

All-star first baseman Carlos Delgado was not a fan of the numerous military appreciation events taking place at the ballpark a decade ago. These were staged to bolster support for the Iraq war and doubled as recruitment stations, using sports to increase the ranks of the armed forces, which had thinned dramatically after George W. Bush decided to call for a permanent era of armed conflict. As Delgado said, “I won’t stand for this war.… It’s a very terrible thing that happened on September 11. It’s [also] a terrible thing that happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. I just feel so sad for the families that lost relatives and loved ones in the war. But I think it’s the stupidest war ever.”

Now we can not only see that these events were politically transparent propaganda for a flagging war effort. We know they were paid for by us. We know that the US Department of Defense doled out $5.4 million from 2011 to 2014 to fourteen NFL teams to stage these warm-hearted “Salute the Troops” events, as well as do product placement, advertising, and “casual” (otherwise known as “subliminal”) mentions.

National Guard spokesman Rick Breitenfeldt, in a statement that was actually supposed to defend and explain this practice said,

This isn’t, as some might think, payment for unfurling a flag or to welcome a soldier home on the field. This is more about spending for marketing and advertising, for signage, for website takeovers.… We have hundreds of [sponsorship agreements] with teams, including minor league baseball and at high school. We have found that spending in sports to help us recruit in our 18-24 demographic works out for us.

It’s that last part which really singes the eyes. Far too many people are outraged about this story just because the taxpayers were on the hook for something people thought was being underwritten by red, white, and blue NFL owners. Hell, this story was originally broken (in part) by Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake railing against “pork-chop” spending. Granted, the idea of any of our money going into the welfare-king pockets of NFL owners is stomach-churning. But the highly manipulative recruitment practices aimed at “18-24 year olds,” which Jeff Flake has no problem with, are being let off the hook. I know as the expression goes, you throw your line where the fish happen to gather or as Willie Sutton said, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” But this isn’t like opening a new gourmet burrito food truck in a neighborhood going hipster. This is preying on the young and using their love of sports to lure them into the arena of war. While football and fighting in war have traumatic brain injury in common, everything else—from the military metaphors used by announcers to the four-star-general fixations of head coaches (even NBA coaches think they’re fighter pilots!)—is worlds apart.

It would be wise to listen to the mother of the one NFL player who made that journey from “combat” on the field to the real combat overseas, the late Pat Tillman. As his mom, Mary, said to me last year, “A feeling of camaraderie is important to all humans and I think the camaraderie of sport provides the most reward. Many young men join the military in order to get that feeling of belonging, that feeling of brotherhood. It is irresponsible to try to entice young people into military service with subliminal messages.”

Now we know: not only subliminal but on our dime. One thing is certain: Carlos Delgado was right a decade ago. This is just the stupidest damn war ever.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/207161/why-are-we-paying-nfl-help-pentagon-recruit-troops

Reprinted under Fair Use Rules.

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency: “Establish a Salafist principality in Syria”, facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime”

By Brad Hoff
From the Levant Report
Posted on Global Research, May 22, 2015

Declassified DIA document

VIDEO: Declassified: Massive Israeli Manipulation of US Media

On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.

While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.

Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHICH] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.

The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.

While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.

Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).

The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:

  • Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
  • The West identifies with the opposition
  • The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
  • The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers  supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
  • “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war’; see 7.B.)
  • Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
  • A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)

_____________________________________________

The following is excerpted from the seven page DIA declassified report (bold-facing is my own):

R 050839Z AUG 12

THE GENERAL SITUATION:

A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.

B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.

3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA

4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.

7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:

A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.

8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OFESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)

8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/defense-intelligence-agency-create-a-salafist-principality-in-syria-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/5451216

2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime”