Author: admin

BBC reports RAF jets scrambled after Russian bombers seen off Cornwall

Posted by

0

The map below of just some of the “threatened” countries tells all. Just where is NATO parking its troops, headquarters, and equipment, and conducting exercises? Who is threatening who? Exactly how does President Putin pose a “real and present danger”?

“Ukraine is thus seen as a manifestation of a much broader policy shift on the part of the Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

“Mr Fallon’s belief that there is indeed a potential threat to Nato territory – in particular the Baltic Republics – is widely shared.”

That’s horrifying. Leaders must base their actions on facts, not beliefs, not ancestral prejudices, not what’s good for the ruling class. Unfortunately for the peace of the world, British, American, and European “beliefs” are driving all of us to war against Russia. And not just for the stated reasons of “threats”. Until Western leaders start living in a fact-based world, with a desire to serve the people of their countries, with a belief system reflective of reality and a value system that includes living together in harmony, we face mutual annihilation.

The BBC’s reporting and analysis are deplorable.

From the BBC, February 19, 2015

Mr Cameron says the incident should not be dignified with a response

RAF jets were scrambled on Wednesday after two Russian military aircraft were seen off the Cornwall coast, the Ministry of Defence has said.

The Russian Bear bombers did not enter sovereign airspace, it said.

On the same day, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon warned that Russia’s President Putin posed a “real and present danger” to three Baltic states.

Map, BBC

Prime Minister David Cameron said the Russian action should not be dignified with “too much of a response”.

He added: “I think what this episode demonstrates is that we do have the fast jets, the pilots, the systems in place to protect the UK.

“I suspect the Russians were trying to make some sort of a point.”

BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said the appearance of Russian aircraft near the UK coast was a show of strength from the Russians, and such incidents were carried out with political intent because they would be reported on.

Our correspondent said it was part of a trend which had seen Russian aircraft flying close to UK airspace and there had also been concern about similar incidents in Europe.

Russian bomber, BBC

The two Russian Bear bombers were “escorted” by RAF jets, the MoD says (file photo)

It comes amid increased concerns over Russian involvement in the conflict in Ukraine and suggestions of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s potential future interference in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

A ceasefire deal between government and pro-Russian rebel separatists in Ukraine was reached a week ago.

But battles around the strategic town of Debaltseve have seen the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops, while there was shelling in several places in eastern Ukraine, including the region’s biggest city, Donetsk, on Thursday.

‘New’ Cold War

Russia has denied helping the separatists, but it has been accused repeatedly of sending weapons and troops and using propaganda to inflame tensions.

And Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin has labelled Ukraine’s call for the deployment of UN peacekeepers in eastern Ukraine as a destructive move.

Mr Cameron has said rebels in eastern Ukraine are using Russian military hardware, and that Mr Putin must understand there would be “economic and financial consequences for many years to come” if he did not change his behaviour.

Speaking to journalists from the Times and Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, Mr Fallon said the increase in Russian defence spending was “clearly worrying” and that he was also “worried about Putin”.

“They are modernising their conventional forces, they are modernising their nuclear forces and they are testing Nato, so we need to respond.”

Mr Fallon also said the prospect of a new Cold War was “warming up”.

“You have tanks and armour rolling across the Ukrainian border and you have an Estonian border guard who has been captured and not yet still returned.”

Vladimir Chizhov, the Russian Ambassador to the EU: ”I entirely reject accusations that Russia is responsible for the destabilisation of Ukraine”

Previous incidents

He also said Russia was likely to use covert tactics such as those he said it had used to annex Crimea and during the current Ukraine conflict.

Mr Putin had also flown two other bombers “down the English Channel two weeks ago”, Mr Fallon added.

“We had to scramble jets very quickly to see them off.

“It’s the first time since the height of the Cold War, it’s the first time that’s happened.”

A French Air Force Mirage filmed from a Russian bomber during a recent encroachment on western European airspace. Pictures from Russian TV Zvedza

Analysis

Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent

The comments from Defence Secretary Michael Fallon are an indication of a fundamental shift in the Nato perception of the crisis in Ukraine.

Nato governments clearly believe that what began as a localised Ukraine problem that strained ties with Moscow has now become a Russia problem, and a Russia problem that is likely to persist for some time.

Ukraine is thus seen as a manifestation of a much broader policy shift on the part of the Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr Fallon’s belief that there is indeed a potential threat to Nato territory – in particular the Baltic Republics – is widely shared; hence Nato’s desire to underline in the most emphatic terms that its security guarantees to its members will be honoured in full.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said Mr Fallon’s comments went “beyond diplomatic ethics” and used “unacceptable terminology”.

He also said Russia would “find a way to respond”.

According to the Department for Transport, there was no record of disruption to civil aviation as a result of the bombers’ presence on Wednesday.

The MoD said: “RAF Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon fighter aircraft were launched [on Wednesday] after Russian aircraft were identified flying close to UK airspace.

“The Russian planes were escorted by the RAF until they were out of the UK area of interest. At no time did the Russian military aircraft cross into UK sovereign airspace.”

A similar incident occurred in January, when the UK Foreign Office said two Russian Tu-95 Bear H bombers flying near UK airspace had caused “disruption to civil aviation” and were also escorted by RAF jets while near UK airspace.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the latest incident “shows that we are of course living in a time of heightened tension with Russia… and we should remain vigilant at all times”.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31530840

NATO to establish Command Center in Lithuania within months

Posted by

0

Xinhua News Agency February 18, 2015

NATO to establish command center in Lithuania in summer

VILNIUS: A NATO command center in Lithuania will be established in the summer, General Hans-Lothar Domrose, commander of Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum, said during his visit here on Tuesday.

The top general held discussions on security issues and NATO’s presence in the region with heads of the Lithuanian army.

According to Domrose, the final decision on command centers would be made by defense ministers from NATO member countries in June, but in terms of military preparedness Lithuania was ready.

“Today, I saw an excellent readiness for the establishment of NATO force integration unit in Lithuania. In my view, this staff in Lithuania will be established in the summer and will reach its full capacity this year,” the general was quoted as saying in a press release from the Ministry of National Defense of Lithuania.

“We are on the right track,” he added.

According to Domrose, around 40 officers will work at the command center, with around half of them being Lithuanians and others being sent from other NATO member countries.

Two weeks ago, defense ministers from NATO member countries agreed on posting international military staff in Lithuania and five other Central and Eastern European countries in response to new security threats in the region.

During his visit, Domrose emphasized that this year there will be more NATO military force exercises in the region. Military exercises are to be attended not only by U.S. soldiers but also by the forces of Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary, according to Lithuania’s national television LRT.

 

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/nato-to-establish-command-center-in-lithuania-within-months/

Game with no rules: “Legal Imperialism” against Russia

Posted by

0

By Valentin Katasonov
Posted on Strategic Culture Foundation

The term legal imperialism was coined in relation to the Argentina’s public debt. A New York court admitted a number of private claims to hand down a verdict. By a stroke of hand a judge increased the country’s debt up to $120 billion, according to experts’ estimates. The essence of legal imperialism is the support rendered by Anglo-Saxon legal system to financial vultures. 

Financial vultures vs. Argentina under the cover of American Themis

It all started in 2001. Argentina had to declare a sovereign default on around $130 billion. It was the biggest default on sovereign debt in history. The talks on restructuring started. As a result, the lenders agreed to write off the bulk of it (75%) and alter the conditions for paying off the rest. Some bondholders in possession of around $4 billion of Argentinian bonds refused to comply with the agreements’ terms. This included a small group of hedge funds holding over $1, 3 billion bonds headed by Elliott Management Corp. of billionaire Paul Singer. The hedge funds had already obtained the reputation of financial vultures. They acquired the bonds of the states that were on the verge of sovereign default or the ones already in default and then demanded 100% payments refusing to accept any compromises.

The audacity is supported by the fact that they normally win the trials demanding 100% payments on the bonds. The vultures went to the New York court to sue Argentina for the whole amount without restructuring. In October 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York) ruled on the pari passu clause that required they receive full payment. Moreover it forbade Argentina to pay off its restructured debts till it complies with the court’s decision. It was an uphill struggle for Argentina as it realized that other lenders would demand full payments too. The country was a hostage because its bonds were issued in compliance with the laws of the state of New York. According to the court’s decision, Argentina faced the June 31, 2014 deadline when it was supposed to pay the next installment of interest to all bondholders. No settlement had been reached so the leading rating agencies greatly lowered the country’s investment rating. The regular payments by Argentina to comply with the conditions of restructured debt were blocked by the court’s ruling. Argentina refuses to comply while the fines keep on growing each passing day…

Yukos case – first large-scale operation conducted by legal imperialism against Russia

The decision handed down by the Hague-based International Arbitration Court in the Russian oil giant Yukos case upon the claim of foreign shareholders is the example of how the legal imperialism works. Yukos ceased to exist as a legal entity in November 2007. For many years it avoided paying taxes. The taxes debts were to be paid in accordance with the court’s decision taken ten years ago. The company failed to comply. The bigger part of Yukos assets went to Russian oil producer Rosneft. Yukos foreign shareholders were disgruntled and went to courts abroad. Finally the claims were consolidated and sent to the Hague International Court. Initially the claimed sum was $114 billion (much more than the Yukos assets at the time of company’s liquidation). The Court let the claims be suspended, it was waiting for something. Finally it got what it was expecting. The West imposed sanctions against Russia in the spring of 2014. The court went back to the Yukos case and made public its verdict: Russia was to pay investors of the now non-existent company $50 billion – the largest compensation ever paid to shareholders upon an international arbitrary tribunal. According to the Court’s decision, Russia allegedly violated the Energy Charter Treaty and expropriated the company taking it from legal owners. A peculiar ruling in view that Russia never ratified the Charter. It is even more peculiar that the acquisition of the Yukos assets by another company is called «expropriation». In fact the verdict was an informal way of imposing sanctions by the West against Russia or the legal imperialism in force. As they say Russia was «put on the counter». After the ruling was announced Russia was given 180 days to comply. It did not. From January 15, the deadline set by the Court in the Hague for Russia to pay its fine, the fine will attract interest equal to the yield on a 10-year US Treasury bond. On January 15 the rate measured 1.91 percent. It means that the first year the sum of the debt will increase to $956, 6 million. That’s why over one billion dollars will surely be added to the $50 billion in 2015.

The Hague Court ruling: what does it mean for Russia?

The appeals made by Russian lawyers brought about no result. The Hague Court’s decision was not taken into account in the 2015 budget. The opposite side is very active. Right after the Court’s decision the former Yukos shareholders were involved in interesting activities – they started to look for Russian assets to be used to pay the debt. Russia’s state foreign assets could be confiscated. The Rosneft assets are to be arrested first, other companies with state participation (VTB, Gasprom, Aeroflot, VAB etc.) second and state agencies third. Embassies have immunity unlike ships visiting foreign ports.

Nobody cares about the fact that there are few companies with 100% state participation. There are non-state minority shareholders and the expropriation of companies’ assets would constitute a violation of their property rights. This is a classic game without rules. Actually there is one – punish Russia at any cost.

Legal imperialism as effective informal sanction against Russia

There have been three packages of sanctions introduced against Russia. Experts believe that the fourth will also come into effect. I don’t think so. The matter is – informal sanctions are more effective. There will be new claims to Russia, its companies and banks. Russian individuals and legal entities will be blacklisted; Western courts will hand down decisions on expropriating their foreign assets. The «case of Rotenberg» will be repeated. In the spring of 2014 Russian entrepreneur Arkady Rotenberg was blacklisted during the first wave of sanctions. In September Italian courts handed down a decision to arrest and confiscate his €30m assets. The March sanctions envisioned a ban on entering the territories of the countries that imposed sanctions and seizing the bank accounts of blacklisted persons. In the case of Rotenberg they took away his real estate that had no relation to business. I emphasize it to show that legal imperialism is a war without rules waged to satisfy the desire to plunder. In general, that’s how the algorithm of legal marauding works:

1) A Western vulture chooses an asset that belongs to a Russian legal entity of individual;

2) The vulture makes the Russian owner blacklisted;

3) A Western court hands down a decision to seize the asset;

4) The court’s decision is carried out; the asset becomes the property of the vulture.

Black lists as an instrument of legal imperialism

There are different grounds for being included into black lists: «suspicion of corruption involvement», «complicity in the annexation of Crimea and aggression against Ukraine», «the violation of human rights», «ties with terrorists» etc. The US has already introduced special laws, for instance, «the Magnitsky Act» allowing making lists of those who had connection to the death of lawyer Sergey Magnitsky. The lawyer represented the investment advisory firm Hermitage Capital Management. In 2008 he was arrested accused of few billion roubles tax evasion. He died in a prison cell. The West made him a martyr and responded with black lists.

Not the United States is mulling a possibility to turn the Magnitsky Act into a universal instrument of fighting Russia under the banner of defending human rights. It is planned to include into the list not only those who did anything wrong to Magnitsky, but also Alexey Navalny and his associates in «the struggle against totalitarianism». Washington wants to kill two birds with one stone: a) to exert political pressure on Russia; b) to reap benefit by seizing the assets of the persons included into the black lists (the Magnitsky Act envisions a ban on entry into the country and arrest of bank accounts). They want to get more out of it. It is considered to go beyond seizing the bank accounts but also spread the sanctions on bonds and equity.

(To be continued)

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/17/game-with-no-rules-legal-imperialism-against-russia-i.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/game-with-no-rules-legal-imperialism-against-russia/5432153

Ukraine Finance Minister Jaresko’s questionable activities

Posted by

0

From Consortium News, February 18, 2014
By Robert Parry

Ukraine’s new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who has become the face of reform for the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev and will be a key figure handling billions of dollars in Western financial aid, was at the center of insider deals and other questionable activities when she ran a $150 million U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment fund.

Prior to taking Ukrainian citizenship and becoming Finance Minister last December, Jaresko was a former U.S. diplomat who served as chief executive officer of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by Congress in the 1990s and overseen by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) to help jumpstart an investment economy in Ukraine.

But Jaresko, who was limited to making $150,000 a year at WNISEF under the U.S. AID grant agreement, managed to earn more than that amount, reporting in 2004 that she was paid $383,259 along with $67,415 in expenses, according to WNISEF’s public filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

Later, Jaresko’s compensation was removed from public disclosure altogether after she co-founded two entities in 2006: Horizon Capital Associates (HCA) to manage WNISEF’s investments (and collect around $1 million a year in fees) and Emerging Europe Growth Fund (EEGF) to collaborate with WNISEF on investment deals.

Jaresko formed HCA and EEGF with two other WNISEF officers, Mark Iwashko and Lenna Koszarny. They also started a third firm, Horizon Capital Advisors, which “serves as a sub-advisor to the Investment Manager, HCA,” according to WNISEF’s IRS filing for 2006.

U.S. AID apparently found nothing suspicious about these tangled business relationships – and even allowed WNISEF to spend millions of dollars helping EEGF become a follow-on private investment firm – despite the potential conflicts of interest involving Jaresko, the other WNISEF officers and their affiliated companies.

For instance, WNISEF’s 2012 annual report devoted two pages to “related party transactions,” including the management fees to Jaresko’s Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689 in 2012) and WNISEF’s co-investments in projects with the EEGF, where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko’s Horizon Capital managed the investments of both WNISEF and EEGF.

From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova’s Fincombank for $5 million, the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF and Horizon Capital. But it’s difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals and the transactions apparently raised no red flags for U.S. AID officials.

Bonuses for Officers

Regarding compensation, WNISEF’s 2013 filing with the IRS noted that the fund’s officers collected millions of dollars in bonuses for closing out some investments at a profit even as the overall fund was losing money. According to the filing, WNISEF’s $150 million nest egg had shrunk by more than one-third to $94.5 million and likely has declined much more during the economic chaos that followed the U.S.-back coup in February 2014.

But prior to the coup and the resulting civil war, Jaresko’s WNISEF was generously spreading money around. For instance, the 2013 IRS filing reported that the taxpayer-financed fund paid out as “expenses” $7.7 million under a bonus program, including $4.6 million to “current officers,” without identifying who received the money. Continue reading →

IMF loans to Ukraine: deadly “economic medicine” aimed at total destabilization

Posted by

0

A clear overview of the consequences of the IMF loans and economic program approved by Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko.

From Global Research, February 17, 2015
By Ernst Wolff

On February 12, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, announced that the IMF had reached an agreement with the Ukrainian government on a new economic reform program. Ms Lagarde’s statement, made in Brussels, came only minutes after peace negotiations between the heads of the German, French, Russian und Ukrainian governments in Minsk, Belarus, had ended. The timing was no coincidence. Washington had been left out of the negotiations and now reacted by sending its most powerful financial organization to the forefront in order to deliver a clear message to the world: that the US will not loosen its grip on the Ukraine, if not by sending weapons, then at least economically and financially.

Mme Lagarde’s assertions that the program “would support immediate economic stabilization“ and spell “a turning point for the Ukraine“ are as far removed from reality as the main stream media’s depiction of the IMF as an aid organization helping a drowning country to survive in times of trouble. Not a single cent of the loans will go to the Ukrainian working people. Instead, the money will be used to prop up the Yatseniuk government which is totally subservient to US interests, and enable it to service the debts incurred by its predecessors in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, to pay off most of its military expenses of around $ 250 million per month for the continuation of a war against its own population and to fill at least some holes in the state budget which are due to the country’s ongoing economic deterioration.

The loans will be based on the terms of an economic program for Ukraine for 2015 – 2020, passed by the Kiev parliament in December 2014, and are tied to harsh conditions laid down in a letter of intent, signed by prime minister Yatseniuk and president Poroshenko in August 2014. Some of the measures have already been implemented, others will follow. Among those already in force is the flexible exchange rate regime which has not only led to a 67% devaluation of the hrivna, lowering the average monthly wage of Ukrainian workers to less than $ 60, but has also opened the doors for international currency speculators who have already made millions by indebting themselves in hrivnia and repaying their debts in euros and dollars.

The rate of inflation, running at 25 % in 2014 and expected to rise even higher in 2015, and a hike in gas prices by 50 % in May 2014 made survival almost impossible for the weakest 20 % of the population who already lived below the poverty line in 2013. Among the measures still to come are the layoff of 10 % of the country’s public employees and the partial privatization of health care and education. The retirement age for women is to be raised by 10 years, that for men by 5 years, most benefits for old age pensioners are to be abolished, the pharmaceuticals market is to be deregulated. Retirement pensions will be frozen, and there will be no more free lunches for school children and patients in hospitals. Benefits for victims of the 1986 nuclear disaster in Chernobyl are to be cut, and the boundaries of the officially designated radioactive hazard zone will be revised. The country’s monthly minimum wage is to remain at 1,218.00 hrivna ($ 46 at the current rate of exchange) until at least November 2015.

None of these measures will serve to “improve the living standards for the Ukrainian people“, as cynically predicted by Ms Lagarde. Nor will they “restore robust growth“ in an economy which is teetering on the verge of collapse, with a central bank left with only $ 6 billion in currency reserves and incapable of raising new fundi

ng in foreign exchange auctions. However, they will contribute to an intensification of the suffering of the Ukrainian people, deepen the social divide of a country already torn apart by a bloody civil war and lead to its complete disintegration, nurturing separatist movements and thus creating perfect conditions for a future of violence and despair.

In pursuing this strategy, the IMF is totally in line with the geopolitical policies pursued by Wall Street and the government in Washington. Both are in deep trouble, with the US torn apart by ever-increasing social inequality threatening to explode in massive social unrest, while its rulers are drowning in debt and losing control over the world financial system. Having dominated global markets for seven decades, the United States’ economic decline and a shift in global power are ringing in the end of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and thereby heralding the end of the US’s status as the world’s super power.

In a reckless attempt to stop this unstoppable process, Wall Street and the White House are waging an extremely aggressive campaign against Russia and China who have dared to complete an energy deal outside the petro-dollar and whom the US fear to be preparing a new, possibly gold-backed, currency that might replace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. To prevent this from happening and to gain control of the vast natural riches of Russia which promise enormous profits, Wall Street and the White House are pursuing a strategy of regime change in Moscow, undertaking everything possible to replace the Russian government by one that is as subservient to US interests as that of Ukrainian premier Yatseniuk and his investment banker cronies in Kiev. One of the means to this end is the integration of Ukraine into NATO in order to step up the military threat against Russia. However, as the EU – and Germany in particular – do not seem to be willing to join forces in an all-out war against Russia (not out of humanitarian considerations, but because of their dependency on Russian gas and oil and their anticipation of a new monetary world order no longer dominated by the US) and as the majority of Americans, despite a massive media campaign demonizing Vladimir Putin, are unwilling to support a war that would cost more money and more lives than any war in the past and could end up in a nuclear catastrophe, the US government’s and the IMF’s main purpose in Ukraine is to deepen and widen the already existing economic, social and ethnic conflicts. By doing so, they hope to force Vladimir Putin into a long-lasting and costly war that will weaken his position at home and eventually pave the way for the installation of new rulers in Moscow.

Looking at Ukraine as a part of the present geopolitical struggle, one can see that the IMF’s  new loans to Ukraine, announced by Christine Lagarde, are anything but a “turning point“ signalling the country’s stabilization. They will lead to unspeakable human suffering and contribute to the trail of blood which Ms Lagarde and the IMF are so used to leaving behind after intervening under the pretext of “helping“ countries in times of trouble.

Ernst Wolff is a freelance journalist and the author of the book “Pillaging the World. The History and Politics of the IMF”, published by Tectum Verlag, Germany.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/imf-loans-to-ukraine-deadly-economic-medicine-aimed-at-total-destabilization/5431677

USAF Global Strike Command Director says nuclear weapons have an important role for the world

Posted by

0

From Sputnik News, February 19, 2015

US Air Force Global Strike Command Director Michael Fortney said that the role and utility of the US nuclear arsenal is as important in the current strategic climate as it was in previous decades.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The role and utility of the US nuclear arsenal is as important in the current strategic climate as it was in previous decades, US Air Force Global Strike Command Director Michael Fortney said.

“The role of our [US] nuclear arsenal is at least as important today as it was in decades past,” Fortney stated at the annual nuclear deterrence summit in Washington, DC on Wednesday. “I believe US nuclear weapons have an important role for our country, our allies, and… a role for the world.”

US Navy Spends $302Min on Trident Nuclear Missiles – Pentagon
Those responsible for the US nuclear weapons arsenal must “understand their role and utility”Fortney said, emphasizing their utility as a “strategic speed bump” that has so far prevented major world powers from engaging in head-to-head war.Without naming specific countries, Fortney noted increased tensions among nuclear armed states who are currently modernizing their arsenals across all legs of their nuclear triad.

Fortney raised concerns about certain nuclear states revising their military doctrines reflecting “a resurgent doctrinal utility” for their strategic nuclear forces.

The top nuclear powers on the planet, Russia and the United States, are currently engaged in extensive nuclear modernization, according to both countries’ defense agencies.

Russia announced an updated military doctrine at the end of 2014 re-emphasizing its right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation or if a conventional attack threatened the very existence of the state, according to the document. The new doctrine stopped short of including a nuclear pre-emptive strike notion.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20150219/1018456711.html

Nazi hands that rock American cradles

Posted by

1

It is natural when people move to a foreign country to form ethnically-based groups where they can share common traditions, foods, heritage, history, and teach their children about their heritage.

However, when the “heritage” involves Stepan Bandera and other Nazi collaborators, racists, and ultra-nationalists, when their version of history writes out, re-writes, or even glorifies genocidal activities, and when the group begins funding and promoting activities as well as a political agenda in their new country as well as in their original country, that is very dangerous and cannot be ignored.

This article describes the activities of OUNb-UCCA affiliated groups in America aimed at young people.

This article does not include the influence of Nazi officials and scientists brought to America under Operation Paperclip, and the alliances and mentoring they provided (with the blessing of the United States government) within many branches of government and industry as well as in the American neighborhoods where they lived. It does not include the homegrown Nazi and neo-Nazi individuals and groups in this country, or the industrialists who support Nazism and fascism.  Those numbers dramatically increase the phenomenal level of influence and political pressure and power.

This is in addition to historic racism in America, which provides another layer of support.

— Editor

———————————————————————————

By George Eliason, February 15, 2015
Posted in Global Research

Are Ukrainian-American children brought up to be Bandera followers? If the children of all the Eastern European and Baltic emigre populations bring their children up in American this way, will it have an effect on non-emigre children in the US? With a combined population of 20 million career age emigre ultra nationalists according to their own estimates in the United States alone, you had better find out.

Was the Euromaidan which was funded heavily by the combined emigre populations about democracy? Answering this in a surprise statement at a cabinet meeting on February 10th 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko opened up about the basis of the post-coup Ukrainian state and the ideology it is built on.

“I think to the contrary that the Galicians are the foundation of the Ukrainian state,”

This definitely throws a damper on anyone in the EU or USA calling the Euro-maidan a pro-democratic protest or revolution. The Galicians that Poroshenko is referring to formulated the ideology of Stepan Bandera that is now the foundation of post Maidan Ukraine.

According to Ukrainian-American George Masni, a former UCCA Arizona state president “The “simple nationalism” Poroshenko is talking about is love of ones nation that drives to defend it from invaders. This type of nationalism is better known as patriotism.”

If ultra-nationalist ideology wasn’t part of the Ukrainian political landscape pre-Maidan, where did it come from? Before 1991 this ideology was foreign in Ukraine except for a tiny minority in the Lviv region.

The Nazi/ nationalist ideology of Stepan Bandera made its home in the hearts of Eastern European emigres worldwide, particularly in the United States and Canada. Each succeeding generation has been taught to be more dedicated to it than their parents were. Continue reading →

Ukraine denouement: From the military battlefield to the arena of international finance

Posted by

0

From Counterpunch, February 16, 2015
By Michael Hudson

The fate of Ukraine is now shifting from the military battlefield back to the arena that counts most: that of international finance. Kiev is broke, having depleted its foreign reserves on waging war that has destroyed its industrial export and coal mining capacity in the Donbass (especially vis-à-vis Russia, which normally has bought 38 percent of Ukraine’s exports). Deeply in debt (with €3 billion falling due on December 20 to Russia), Ukraine faces insolvency if the IMF and Europe do not release new loans next month to pay for new imports as well as Russian and foreign bondholders.

Finance Minister Natalia Yaresko announced on Friday that she hopes to see the money begin to flow in by early March.[1] But Ukraine must meet conditions that seem almost impossible: It must implement an honest budget and start reforming its corrupt oligarchs (who dominate in the Rada and control the bureaucracy), implement more austerity, abolish its environmental protection, and make its industry “attractive” to foreign investors to buy Ukraine’s land, natural resources, monopolies and other assets, presumably at distress prices in view of the country’s recent devastation.

Looming over the IMF loan is the military situation. On January 28, Christine Lagarde said that the IMF would not release more money as long as Ukraine remains at war. Cessation of fighting was to begin Sunday morning. But Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh announced that his private army and that of the Azov Battalion will ignore the Minsk agreement and fight against Russian-speakers. He remains a major force within the Rada.

How much of Ukraine’s budget will be spent on arms? Germany and France made it clear that they oppose further U.S. military adventurism in Ukraine, and also oppose NATO membership. But will Germany follow through on its threat to impose sanctions on Kiev in order to stop a renewal of the fighting? For the United States bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the coup de grace blocking creation of a Eurasian powerhouse integrating the Russian, German and other continental European economies.

The Obama administration is upping the ante and going for broke, hoping that Europe has no alternative but to keep acquiescing. But the strategy is threatening to backfire. Instead of making Russia “lose Europe,” the United States may have overplayed its hand so badly that one can now think about the opposite prospect. The Ukraine adventure turn out to be the first step in the United States losing Europe. It may end up splitting European economic interests away from NATO, if Russia can convince the world that the epoch of armed occupation of industrial nations is a thing of the past and hence no real military threat exists – except for Europe being caught in the middle of Cold War 2.0.

For the U.S. geopolitical strategy to succeed, it would be necessary for Europe, Ukraine and Russia to act against their own potential economic self-interest. How long can they be expected to acquiesce in this sacrifice? At what point will economic interests lead to a reconsideration of old geo-military alliances and personal political loyalties?

The is becoming urgent because this is the first time that continental Europe has been faced with such war on its own borders (if we except Yugoslavia). Where is the advantage for Europe supporting one of the world’s most corrupt oligarchies north of the Equator?

America’s Ukrainian adventure by Hillary’s appointee Victoria Nuland (kept on and applauded by John Kerry), as well as by NATO, is forcing Europe to commit itself to the United States or pursue an independent line. George Soros (whose aggressive voice is emerging as the Democratic Party’s version of Sheldon Adelson) recently urged (in the newly neocon New York Review of Books) that the West give Ukraine $50 billion to re-arm, and to think of this as a down payment on military containment of Russia. The aim is old Brzezinski strategy: to foreclose Russian economic integration with Europe. The assumption is that economic alliances are at least potentially military, so that any power center raises the threat of economic and hence political independence.

The Financial Times quickly jumped on board for Soros’s $50 billion subsidy.[2] When President Obama promised that U.S. military aid would be only for “defensive arms,” Kiev clarified that it intended to defend Ukraine all the way to Siberia to create a “sanitary cordon.” Continue reading →

Azov battalion thugs hijack a car of Mariupol prosecutor

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

February 15, 2015
Rusvesna
Translated by Kristina Rus

Militants from Azov battalion, threatening with a pistol, stole the SUV of a Mariupol prosecutor.

Prosecutor of one of the districts of Mariupol experienced unity with Ukraine on his own skin.

When he was driving on a highway in his SUV, he was cut off by a military truck with soldiers from Azov punitive battalion. Jumping out of the truck with weapons, the militants forced the Prosecutor to get out of the car and give them the keys.

Attempts by the Prosecutor to explain who he is, ended predictably. The militants put the gun to the head of the stubborn civil defender. The mercenaries “liberated” the prosecutor from his car and disappeared in it.

In the occupied Mariupol such a case is not uncommon. As local residents say, “Azov” can do anything – grab people on the streets, break into a house and take out anything they want.

The law enforcement who serve the new government, prefer not to intervene and not to investigate such cases, as a response to any criminal case can be a grenade in their window.

Military correspondent of Rusvesna (“Russian Spring”),  Steppe.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/azov-battalion-thugs-hijack-car-of.html

Support Venezuela — interview with John Pilger:

Posted by

0

Posted on Information Clearing House
By John Pilger and Michael Albert
February 16, 2015 “ICH” – “ZNet” –

Albert: Why would the U.S. want Venezuela’s government overthrown?

Pilger: There are straightforward principles and dynamics at work here. Washington wants to get rid of the Venezuelan government because it is independent of US designs for the region and because Venezuela has the greatest proven oil reserves in the world and uses its oil revenue to improve the quality of ordinary lives. Venezuela remains a source of inspiration for social reform in a continent ravaged by an historically rapacious U.S. An Oxfam report once famously described the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua as ‘the threat of a good example’. That has been true in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez won his first election. The ‘threat’ of Venezuela is greater, of course, because it is not tiny and weak; it is rich and influential and regarded as such by China. The remarkable change in fortunes for millions of people in Latin America is at the heart of U.S. hostility. The U.S. has been the undeclared enemy of social progress in Latin America for two centuries. It doesn’t matter who has been in the White House: Barack Obama or Teddy Roosevelt; the US will not tolerate countries with governments and cultures that put the needs of their own people first and refuse to promote or succumb to U.S. demands and pressures. A reformist social democracy with a capitalist base – such as Venezuela – is not excused by the rulers of the world. What is inexcusable is Venezuela’s political independence; only complete deference is acceptable. The ‘survival’ of Chavista Venezuela is a testament to the support of ordinary Venezuelans for their elected government – that was clear to me when I was last there. Venezuela’s weakness is that the political ‘opposition’ — those I would call the ‘East Caracas Mob’ – represent powerful interests who have been allowed to retain critical economic power. Only when that power is diminished will Venezuela shake off the constant menace of foreign-backed, often criminal subversion. No society should have to deal with that, year in, year out.

What methods has the U.S. already used and would you anticipate their using to unseat the Bolivarians? 

There are the usual crop of quislings and spies; they come and go with their media theatre of fake revelations, but the principal enemy is the media. You may recall the Venezuelan admiral who was one of the coup-plotters against Chavez in 2002, boasting during his brief tenure in power, ‘Our secret weapon was the media’. The Venezuelan media, especially television, were active participants in that coup, lying that supporters of the government were firing into a crowd of protestors from a bridge. False images and headlines went around the world. The New York Times joined in, welcoming the overthrow of a democratic ‘anti-American’ government; it usually does. Something similar happened in Caracas last year when vicious right-wing mobs were lauded as ‘peaceful protestors’ who were being ‘repressed’. This was undoubtedly the start of a Washington-backed ‘colour revolution’ openly backed by the likes of the National Endowment for Democracy – a user-friendly CIA clone. It was uncannily like the coup that Washington successfully staged in Ukraine last year. As in Kiev, in Venezuela the ‘peaceful protestors’ set fire to government buildings and deployed snipers and were lauded by western politicians and the western media. The strategy is almost certainly to push the Maduro government to the right and so alienate its popular base. Depicting the government as dictatorial and incompetent has long been an article of bad faith among journalists and broadcasters in Venezuela and in the US, the UK and Europe. One recent US ‘story’ was that of a ‘US scientist jailed for trying to help Venezuela build bombs’. The implication was that Venezuela was harbouring ‘nuclear terrorists’. In fact, the disgruntled nuclear physicist had no connection whatsoever with Venezuela.

All this is reminiscent of the unrelenting attacks on Chávez, each with that peculiar malice reserved for dissenters from the west’s ‘one true way’. In 2006, Britain’s Channel 4 News effectively accused the Venezuelan president of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran, an absurd fantasy. The Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, sneered at policies to eradicate poverty and presented Chávez as a sinister buffoon, while allowing Donald Rumsfeld, a war criminal, to liken Chavez to Hitler, unchallenged. The BBC is no different. Researchers at the University of the West of England in the UK studied the BBC’s systematic bias in reporting Venezuela over a ten-year period. They looked at 304 BBC reports and found that only three of these referred to any of the positive policies of the government. For the BBC, Venezuela’s democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives and poverty reduction programmes did not exist. Mission Robinson, the greatest literacy programme in human history, received barely a passing mention. This virulent censorship by omission complements outright fabrications such as accusations that the Venezuelan government are a bunch of drug-dealers. None of this is new; look at the way Cuba has been misrepresented – and assaulted – over the years. Reporters Without Borders has just issued its worldwide ranking of nations based on their claims to a free press. The U.S. is ranked 49th, behind Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso and El Salvador.

Why might now be a prime time, internationally, for pushing toward a coup? If the primary problem is Venezuela being an example that could spread, is the emergence of a receptive audience for that example in Europe adding to the U.S. response?

It’s important to understand that Washington is ruled by true extremists, once known inside the Beltway as ‘the crazies’. This has been true since before 9/11. A few are outright fascists. Asserting US dominance is their undisguised game and, as the events in Ukraine demonstrate, they are prepared to risk a nuclear war with Russia. These people should be the common enemy of all sane human beings. In Venezuela, they want a coup so that they can roll-back of some of the world’s most important social reforms – such as in Bolivia and Ecuador. They’ve already crushed the hopes of ordinary people in Honduras. The current conspiracy between the US and Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil is meant to achieve something more spectacular in Venezuela, and Russia.

What do you think the best approach might be to warding off u.s. machinations, and those of domestic Venezuelan elites as well, for the Bolivarians?

The majority people of Venezuela, and their government, need to tell the world the truth about the attacks on their country. There is a stirring across the world, and many people are listening. They don’t want perpetual instability, perpetual poverty, perpetual war, perpetual rule by the few. And they identify the principal enemy; look at the international polling surveys that ask which country presents the greatest danger to humanity. The majority of people overwhelmingly point to the U.S., and to its numerous campaigns of terror and subversion.

What do you think is the immediate responsibility of leftists outside Venezuela, and particularly in the U.S.?

That begs a question: who are these ‘leftists’? Are they the millions of liberal North Americans seduced by the specious rise of Obama and silenced by his criminalising of freedom of information and dissent? Are they those who believe what they are told by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC? It’s an important question. ‘Leftist’ has never been a more disputed and misappropriated term. My sense is that people who live on the edge and struggle against US-backed forces in Latin America understood the true meaning of the word, just as they identify a common enemy. If we share their principles, and a modicum of their courage, we should take direct action in our own countries, starting, I would suggest, with the propagandists in the media. Yes, it’s our responsibility, and it has never been more urgent.

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41011.htm