When the U.S. welched on Shevardnadze [Commentary]

The Ukraine crisis owes its roots to a deal America made and broke with the recently deceased Soviet foreign minister

By Ray McGovern, July 16, 2014

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, serving as chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and then deputy national intelligence officer for Western Europe. Now retired, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in January, 2003.

Absent from U.S. media encomia for recently deceased former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze is any mention of the historic deal he reached with his U.S. counterpart James Baker in 1990 ensuring that the Soviet empire would collapse “with a whimper, not a bang” (Mr. Baker’s words).

Mr. Baker keeps repeating that the Cold War “could not have ended peacefully without Shevardnadze.” But he and others are silent on the quid pro quo. The quid was Moscow’s agreement to swallow the bitter pill of a reunited Germany in NATO; the quo was a U.S. promise not to “leapfrog” NATO over Germany farther East. Washington welched on the deal.

It began to unravel in October 1996 during the last weeks of President Bill Clinton’s campaign for re-election. Mr. Clinton bragged that he would welcome Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, explaining, “America truly is the world’s indispensable nation” (and, sotto voce, can do what it wants).

Those three countries joined NATO in 1999, and by April 2009, nine more became members, bringing the post-Cold War additions to 12 — equal to the number of the original 12 NATO states. The additional nine included the former Baltic Republics that had been part of the USSR, but not Ukraine. NATO intentions, however, were made clear at its summit in Bucharest in April 2008, which formally declared, “Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.”

Even hawkish former American national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski now concedes, “It is reasonable for Russia to feel uncomfortable about the prospect” of Ukraine in NATO. And that is the nub of today’s crisis there — not the “chauvinistic fanaticism” Mr. Brzezinski attributes to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The foundering of the unique opportunity in 1990 to create a lasting peace in what President George H. W. Bush called a “Europe whole and free” was a tragedy. The expansion of NATO to the east — especially the decision to bring in Georgia and Ukraine — led, among other things, to Georgian-Russian hostilities in August 2008 and now to the current violence in Ukraine.

The fact that the Shevardnadze-Baker agreement was not recorded in an official document has helped revisionists to create alternative history, but there is compelling evidence testifying to Washington’s reneging on key oral commitments to Moscow.

Then-U.S. Ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Shevardnadze-Baker discussions in early February 1990, told me, “The language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no ‘taking advantage’ by the U.S. … I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but ‘taking advantage,’ particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat.”

On February 10, 1990, German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told Shevardnadze, “For us, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.” Melvin Goodman, co-author of “The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze,” has told me that, during an interview of Shevardnadze in March 1994, the former foreign minister said Mr. Baker had assured him that NATO “would not jump over” East Germany for new members.

Three months after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and installation of a pro-Western government in Kiev, Russian President Vladimir Putin complained: “But tomorrow Ukraine might become a NATO member, and the day after tomorrow missile defense units of NATO could be deployed in this country.”

Mr. Putin keeps coming back specifically to “missile defense” in NATO countries — or adjacent waters. On April 17, he said the issue is “probably even more important than NATO’s eastward expansion. Incidentally, our decision on Crimea was partially prompted by this logic: If we don’t do anything, Ukraine will be drawn into NATO … and NATO ships would dock in Sevastopol.”

President Putin added: “If these systems are deployed closer to our borders, our ground-based strategic missiles will be within their striking range.” Even Mr. Brzezinski might agree that “it is reasonable for Russia to feel uncomfortable” about NATO ships docking in Crimea. Among the chief reasons: The current version of the missile defense plan includes ship-borne systems.

In his book, “Duty,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates notes that the Russians consider the latest plan even worse than earlier ones because it might eventually have capabilities against Russian ICBMs. He added dismissively, “Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list.”

To respond to this commentary, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information. Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun

http://warisacrime.org/content/some-facts-re-genesis-current-crisis-Ukraine

Published under Fair Use Rules.

Information available at
http://stopwar.org.uk/events/national-protests-no-new-wars-no-to-nato-protests#.VAQKSdzn9Qw

No New Wars, No to NATO

PROTEST — 30 August – 5 September

DEMONSTRATE — Saturday, 30 August

COUNTER-CONFERENCE — Sunday, 31 August – Monday, 1 September, Cardiff & Newport

See Schedule below for other protests and direct action during the week

Stop the War Coalition 30 August 2014.

60 world leaders, including Barack Obama, meet in the UK for the NATO Summit on 4-5 September to plan their war on the world. From 30 August protesters will flock to South Wales for international actions including a national demonstration, counter summit, and week-long peace camp. Stop the War and CND have organised NO TO NATO – NO NEW WARS protests from 30 August to 5 September. See the timetable of action and events below.

LIVE BLOG for updates on NO TO NATO – NO MORE WARS week of protest in Wales…

Schedule

Continue reading →

Allen Dulles and the OUN-B; Did the CIA/MI6 use of Nazis in Ukraine During the Cold War Ever Stop?

February 15, 2014

According to Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence and the Cold War by Richard Breitman and Norman Goda, U.S. intelligence documents released in 2010 reveal that on May 5, 1952, the Deputy Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, well-known for running the Nazi Ratlines after World War II, which facilitated the escape of Nazi war criminals, wrote a letter to the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization on the subject of Mykola Lebed, the chief of the secret police organization of Stephen Bandera’s OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists).

In the letter Dulles wrote that Lebed was of “inestimable value to this Agency in its operations. In connection with future Agency operations of the first importance, it is urgently necessary that subject be able to travel in Western Europe, before subject undertakes such travel, however, this Agency must be in a position to assure his reentry into the United States without investigation or incident which would attact undue attention to his activities. Your Service has indicated that it cannot give such assurance because of the fact that subject was convicted in 1936 of complicity in the 1934 assassination of the Polish Minister of the Interior and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment…. Your Service has indicated that, if the subject reenters the United States on a reentry permit, an investigation must then be conducted…. In order to remove the obstacles to the fulfillment of this Agency’s projected operations and pursuant to the authority granted under Section 8 of the CIA Act of 1949, I approve and recommend for your approval, the entrance of this subject into the United States for permanent residence under the above Act because such entry is essential to the furtherance of the national intelligence mission and is in the interest of national security.”

Both Bandera, who was also convicted for assassinating the Polish Interior Minister, and Lebed escaped prison in Poland when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. Then, when the Nazis invaded the U.S.S.R. on June 22, 1941, Bandera and Lebed declared a sovereign and united Ukrainian state in East Galicia. Lebed, having trained at a Gestapo center in Zakopane, was to be the new minister for security.

A Banderist proclamation in April 1941 claimed that “Jews in the U.S.S.R. constitute the most faithful support of the ruling Bolshevik regime and the Muscovite imperialism in the Ukraine.” Pogroms in East Galicia in the war’s first days killed perhaps 12,000 Jews. In April 1943, Lebed proposed to “cleanse the entire revolutionary territory of the Polish population.” On a single day, July 11, 1943, the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) attacked some 80 localities, killing perhaps 10,000 Poles.

Allen Dulles’s letter makes no mention of Lebed’s training by the Gestapo, nor his and Bandera’s ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles in Ukraine.

As documented by Breitman and Goda, the mission referred to Dulles was, like today’s, to wage war against Russia (then the Soviet Union) on Ukrainian soil, employing known Nazis. Their account raises serious questions as to whether this program was ever stopped as claimed.

Bandera himself was employed not by the CIA but by MI6, which worked with him until at least 1954. He was later picked up by the German BND headed by Gen. Reinhardt Gehlen, the head of German military intelligence on the Eastern Front during World War II, in 1959. Bandera’s personal contact in West German intelligence was Heinz Danko Herre, Gehlen’s old deputy. Herre admitted that West German use of Bandera was a “closely held” secret even within the BND and that the relationship was “not cleared with Bonn due to political overtones.”

Bandera had been trying to obtain a U.S. visa since 1955. Despite refusing to work with him, in October 1959 the CIA recommended that he obtain the visa. Ten days later he was assassinated, reportedly by the KGB.

While the MI6 and BND worked with Bandera, the CIA worked instead with Lebed from 1950, until the so-called end of the Cold War in 1990, despite the fact that a CIC (U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps) report from July 1947 called Lebed a “well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans.” Lebed was initially moved by the Army from Rome to Munich after the war. He later relocated to New York and acquired permanent resident status, then U.S. citizenship, thanks to Allen Dulles.

Once in the United States, he became the CIA’s chief contact for Operation Aerodynamics, which was the successor to the earlier Operation Cartel. These operations were for “the support, development and exploitation of the Ukrainian underground movement for resistance and intelligence purposes.”

Beginning in 1953, Aerodynamic began to operate though a Ukrainian study group under Lebed’s leadership in New York under CIA auspices. In 1956, this group was incorporated as the non-profit Prolog Research and Publishing Association. In 1956 alone, with CIA support, Prolog broadcast 1,200 radio programs totaling 70 hours per month, and distributed 200,000 newspapers and 5,000 pamphlets. Beginning in 1960, Prolog also employed a CIA-trained Ukrainian named Anatol Kaminsky. By 1966 Kaminsky was Prolog’s chief operations officer, while Lebed provided overall management.

Lebed retired in 1975, but remained an adviser and consultant to Prolog. In the 1980s Aerodynamic’s name was changed to Qrdynamic, Pddynamic, and then Qrplumb. In the 1980s, Prolog expanded its operations to reach other Soviet nationalities. Allegedly, Qrplumb was terminted in 1990. Prolog, however, was allowed to continue its activities, but it was allegedly on its own financially, which raises questions as to whether this entire operation has continued to today.

In June 1985, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in the Department of Justice began investigating Lebed. The CIA worried that an investigation of Lebed would compromise Qrplumb, protected Lebed once again by denying any connection between Lebed and the Nazis. As late as 1991, the CIA tried to dissuade the OSI from obtaining wartime records related to OUN-B from the German, Polish and Soviet governments. Lebed died in 1998. He is buried in New Jersey.

But what we are seeing in Ukraine today, is the same fascist policy pursued by Allen Dulles, this time under Barack Obama, which raises the question: Did Qrplumb/Prolog ever stop?

http://larouchepac.com/node/29841

Posted on Stop the War Coalition http://stopwar.org.uk

Excerpt from

Patriotic Heresy vs. the New Cold War
By Stephen F. Cohen,
August 27, 2014   |    This article appeared in the September 15, 2014 edition of The Nation.

——————————————————————————————–

[Note: This excerpt and the complete article have many important insights. It falls short, in my view, because it does not state that US policy has been to deliberately separate Ukraine from Russia through many means. Furthermore, it is not a 20-year history of interference. It is a 62-year history (and perhaps longer) at least since the close of World War II, of direct involvement-interference in Ukraine. The crisis in Ukraine was prepared and instigated by the US over many years. Now, especially with the appointment of John Tefft as ambassador to Russia, it looks like the US has moved to create a similar Maidan crisis in Russia.

Cohen also states in the complete article

I must also emphasize, we should exempt from this imperative young people, who have more to lose. A few have sought my guidance, and I always advise, “Even petty penalties for dissent in regard to Russia could adversely affect your career. At this stage of life, your first obligation is to your family and thus to your future prospects. Your time to fight lies ahead.”

This is a grave mistake. The youth of the 60s and 70s were vital participants in the protests on many issues, including in the civil rights movement. It was their courage, creativity, enthusiasm, and presence that was a major part of progress on the many issues. Some paid with their lives. Without their participation, which became their rite of passage, we might still be mired in Vietnam or apartheid in this country.

Enclaving our youth has become a societal fetish — imprisoning them and stunting their lives, while depriving society of their clearer vision, wisdom, and action. John Taylor Gatto talks, for example, in Weapons of Mass Instruction and Dumbing Us Down, of the horrible destruction our American school systems wreck on our children and our society.

In a very practical sense, with the crises and perils as we are facing, there may not be a future. We must have “all hands on deck” to face these very stubborn forces and problems in our world. It is imperative that we involve our youth in all these issues, including resolving this very dangerous situation in Ukraine.]

———————————————————————————————–

Twenty years of US policy have led to this fateful American-Russian confrontation. Putin may have contributed to it, but his role has been almost entirely reactive.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. The new Cold War orthodoxy rests almost entirely on fallacious opinions. Five of those fallacies are particularly important today.

Fallacy No. 1: Ever since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington has treated post-Communist Russia generously as a desired friend and partner, making every effort to help it become a democratic, prosperous member of the Western system of international security. Unwilling or unable, Russia rejected this American altruism, emphatically under Putin.

Fact: Beginning in the 1990s with the Clinton administration, every American president and Congress has treated post-Soviet Russia as a defeated nation with inferior legitimate rights at home and abroad. This triumphalist, winner-take-all approach has been spearheaded by the expansion of NATO—accompanied by non-reciprocal negotiations and now missile defense—into Russia’s traditional zones of national security, while in reality excluding it from Europe’s security system. Early on, Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Georgia were the ultimate goals. As an influential Washington Post columnist explained in 2004: “The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east…. The great prize is Ukraine.” He was echoed in 2013, on the eve of the current crisis, by Carl Gershman, head of the federally funded National Endowment for Democracy: “Ukraine is the biggest prize.”

Fallacy No. 2:There exists a “Ukrainian people” who yearn to escape centuries of Russian influence and join the West.

Fact: As every informed person knows, Ukraine is a country long divided by ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, economic and political differences—particularly its western and eastern regions, but not only those. When the current crisis began in 2013, Ukraine was one state, but it was not a single people or a united nation. Some of these divisions were made worse after 1991 by a corrupt elite, but most of them had developed over centuries.

Fallacy No. 3:In November 2013, the European Union, backed by Washington, offered Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych a benign association with European democracy and prosperity. Yanukovych was prepared to sign the agreement, but Putin bullied and bribed him into rejecting it. Thus began Kiev’s Maidan protests and all that has since followed.

Fact: The EU proposal was a reckless provocation compelling the democratically elected president of a deeply divided country to choose between Russia and the West. So too was the EU’s rejection of Putin’s counterproposal of a Russian-European-American plan to save Ukraine from financial collapse. On its own, the EU proposal was not economically feasible. Offering little financial assistance, it required the Ukrainian government to enact harsh austerity measures and would have sharply curtailed its longstanding and essential economic relations with Russia. Nor was the EU proposal entirely benign. It included protocols requiring Ukraine to adhere to Europe’s “military and security” policies—which meant in effect, without mentioning the alliance, NATO. In short, it was not Putin’s alleged “aggression” that initiated today’s crisis but instead a kind of velvet aggression by Brussels and Washington to bring all of Ukraine into the West, including (in the fine print) into NATO.

Fallacy No. 4: Today’s civil war in Ukraine was caused by Putin’s aggressive response to the peaceful Maidan protests against Yanukovych’s decision.

Fact: In February 2014, the radicalized Maidan protests, strongly influenced by extreme nationalist and even semi-fascist street forces, turned violent. Hoping for a peaceful resolution, European foreign ministers brokered a compromise between Maidan’s parliamentary representatives and Yanukovych. It would have left him as president, with less power, of a coalition reconciliation government until new elections this December. Within hours, violent street fighters aborted the agreement. Europe’s leaders and Washington did not defend their own diplomatic accord. Yanukovych fled to Russia. Minority parliamentary parties representing Maidan and, predominantly, western Ukraine—among them Svoboda, an ultranationalist movement previously anathematized by the European Parliament as incompatible with European values—formed a new government. They also revised the existing Constitution in their favor. Washington and Brussels endorsed the coup and have supported the outcome ever since. Everything that followed, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the spread of rebellion in southeastern Ukraine to the civil war and Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation,” was triggered by the February coup. Putin’s actions have been mostly reactive.

Fallacy No. 5: The only way out of the crisis is for Putin to end his “aggression” and call off his agents in southeastern Ukraine.

Fact: The underlying causes of the crisis are Ukraine’s own internal divisions, not primarily Putin’s actions. The essential factor escalating the crisis since May has been Kiev’s “anti-terrorist” military campaign against its own citizens, now mainly in Luhansk and Donetsk. Putin influences and no doubt aids the Donbass “self-defenders.” Considering the pressure on him in Moscow, he is likely to continue to do so, perhaps even more directly, but he does not control them. If Kiev’s assault ends, Putin probably can compel the rebels to negotiate. But only the Obama administration can compel Kiev to stop, and it has not done so.

In short, twenty years of US policy have led to this fateful American-Russian confrontation. Putin may have contributed to it along the way, but his role during his fourteen years in power has been almost entirely reactive—indeed, it is a complaint frequently lodged against him by more hardline forces in Moscow.

Source: The Nation

http://stopwar.org.uk/events/protest-the-nato-summit#.VAQFv9zn9Qw

Welsh…

Wales could see its biggest protests in a generation as 60 world leaders meet at the Celtic Manor in Newport for the NATO summit on 4th -5th September to plan their war on the world. Previous summits in Chicago and Strassbourg saw thousands protest war, austerity and global inequality.

From August 30th people will flock to South Wales for international actions including a weekend march and Counter Summit, week-long peace camp, and protests on the summit’s opening day.

NATO is the military alliance binding Europe to US foreign policy, a foreign policy post-Iraq increasingly unpopular around the world. It is also the military alliance currently occupying Afghanistan.

War is the enemy of the poor. The world’s 85 richest people have as much as poorest 3.5 billion. The annual sum needed to end world hunger is $30 billion while the US Military’s budget is $530 billion per year.

Money into war is money out of our communities. In the UK, 500,000 people had to resort to food banks last year. While public services are slashed, one day of war in Afghanistan could fund 100,000 nurses.

This autumn the powerful will make their voices heard at the NATO summit. We must make sure that the voice of the millions around the world who need peace and justice is also heard.

To add your name or your organisation to this statement email: nonatonewport@gmail.com

Видимо у тех, кто недавно называл боевиков Исламского Государства «борцами за свободу» в Сирии, а сегодня возмущаются их бесчинствами в Ираке, что-то с памятью стало. Но, хотя эти суждения и противоречивы по сути, они логичны в стратегическом плане: те же самые люди должны быть представлены как вчерашние союзники и как сегодняшние враги, хотя они и сегодня, и вчера подчинялись Вашингтону. Тьерри Мейсан вскрывает закулисную сторону американской политики через личность сенатора Джона Маккейна, дирижёра «арабской весны» и старого друга халифа Ибрагима.

Everyone has noticed the contradiction of those who recently characterized the Islamic Emirate as “freedom fighters” in Syria and who are indignant today faced with its abuses in Iraq. But if that speech is incoherent in itself, it makes perfect sense in the strategic plan: the same individuals were to be presented as allies yesterday and must be as enemies today, even if they are still on orders from Washington. Thierry Meyssan reveals below US policy through the particular case of Senator John McCain, conductor of the “Arab Spring” and longtime partner of Caliph Ibrahim.

Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 18 August 2014

John McCain is known as the leader of the Republicans and unhappy 2008 US presidential candidate. This is, we will see, only the real part of his biography, which serves as a cover to conduct covert actions on behalf of his government.

When I was in Libya during the “Western”attack, I was able to view a report of the foreign intelligence services. It stated that, on February 4, 2011 in Cairo, NATO organized a meeting to launch the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Syria. According to this document, the meeting was chaired by John McCain. The report detailed the list of Libyan participants, whose delegation was led by the No. 2 man of the government of the day, Mahmoud Jibril, who abruptly switched sides at the entrance of the meeting to become the opposition leader in exile. I remember that, among the French delegates present, the report quoted Bernard-Henry Lévy, although officially he had never exercised functions within the French government. Many other personalities attended the symposium, including a large delegation of Syrians living abroad.

Emerging from the meeting, the mysterious Syrian Revolution 2011 Facebook account called for demonstrations outside the People’s Council (National Assembly) in Damascus on February 11. Although this Facebook account at the time claimed to have more than 40,000 followers, only a dozen people responded to its call before the flashes of photographers and hundreds of police. The demonstration dispersed peacefully and clashes only began more than a month later in Deraa. [1]

On February 16, 2011, a demonstration underway in Benghazi, in memory of members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya [2] massacred in 1996 in the Abu Selim prison, degenerated into shooting. The next day, a second event, this time in memory of those who died by attacking the Danish consulate during the Muhammad cartoons affair, also degenerated into shooting. At the same time, members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya ,coming from Egypt and coordinated by unidentified, hooded individuals, simultaneously attacked four military bases in four different cities. After three days of fighting and atrocities, the rebels launched the uprising of Cyrenaica against Tripolitania [3]; a terrorist attack that the western press falsely presented as a “democratic revolution” against “the regime” of Muammar el-Qaddafi.

On February 22nd, John McCain was in Lebanon. He met members of the Future Movement (the party of Saad Hariri) whom he charged to oversee the transfer of arms to Syria around the MP Okab Sakr [4]. Then, leaving Beirut, he inspected the Syrian border and the selected villages including Ersal, which were used as a basis to back mercenaries in the war to come.

The meetings chaired by John McCain were clearly the trigger point for a long-prepared Washington plan; the plan that would have the UK and France attack Libya and Syria simultaneously, following the doctrine of “leadership from behind” and the annex of the Treaty of Lancaster House of November 2010. [5]

The Illegal Trip to Syria, April 2013

In May 2013, Senator John McCain made his way illegally to near Idleb in Syria via Turkey to meet with leaders of the “armed opposition”. His trip was not made public until his return to Washington. [6]

This movement was organized by the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which, contrary to its title, is a Zionist Organization led by a Palestinian employee of AIPAC [7]

John McCain in Syria. In the foreground at right is the director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force. In the doorway, center, Mohammad Nour.

In photographs released at that time, one noticed the presence of Mohammad Nour, a spokesman for the Northern Storm Brigade (of the Al-Nosra Front, that is to say, al-Qaeda in Syria), who kidnapped and held 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims in Azaz. [8] Asked about his proximity to al-Qaeda kidnappers, the Senator claimed not to know Mohammad Nour who would have invited himself into this photo.

The affair made a great noise and the families of the abducted pilgrims lodged a complaint before the Lebanese judiciary against Senator McCain for complicity in kidnapping. Ultimately, an agreement was reached and the pilgrims were released.

Let’s suppose that Senator McCain had told the truth and that he was abused by Mohammad Nour. The object of his illegal trip to Syria was to meet the chiefs of staff of the Free Syrian Army. According to him, the organization was composed “exclusively of Syrians” fighting for “their freedom” against the “Alouite dictatorship” (sic). The tour organizers published this photograph to attest to the meeting.

John McCain and the heads of the Free Syrian Army. In the left foreground, Ibrahim al-Badri, with which the Senator is talking. Next, Brigadier General Salim Idris (with glasses).

If we can see Brigadier General Idriss Salem, head of the Free Syrian Army, one can also see Ibrahim al-Badri (foreground on the left) with whom the senator is talking. Back from the surprise trip, John McCain claimed that all those responsible for the Free Syrian Army were “moderates who can be trusted” (sic).

However, since October 4, 2011, Ibrahim al-Badri (also known as Abu Du’a) was on the list of the five terrorists most wanted by the United States (Rewards for Justice). A premium of up to $ 10 million was offered to anyone who would assist in his capture. [9] The next day, October 5, 2011, Ibrahim al-Badri was included in the list of the Sanctions Committee of the UN as a member of Al Qaeda. [10] Continue reading →

By Ilja Degtjarov

Salvyangrad.org, August 18, 2014

Global Research, August 19, 2014

As a basic principle we refrain from showing videos in which prisoners of war are questioned. However with this article we make an exception, because the video confirms what the interviewed insurgent states as well in the following text: that the Ukrainian army commits war crimes and buries their own dead in mass graves. So it is worthwhile to read both the text and to watch the video – two completely independent sources.

An interview with an insurgent from the Eastern Ukraine. He lives and fights in an area where the Ukrainian army was shattered three weeks ago, close to the Russian border in the Donetsk region. He stayed quiet about his name to me, but he was a wealthy businessman before the war. The interview was recorded mid-August and translated into German directly and from German. Some accuracy might have been lost when the German was translated to English.

Recorded by: Ilja Degtjarov

Why have you become an insurgent?

Because I do not agree with this Government and the things that are happening. I do not agree with this attitude towards the people. I could not bear it anymore to watch the people being tormented. Therefore, I have become an insurgent even though I’m already 53 years old. I do not agree that they came into my region. I will protect my trees, my stones, houses, children, women and everything else.

Where do you draw your optimism? You fight against the Ukrainian army and thousands of foreign mercenaries. The whole West backs the Ukraine. Why do you remain optimistic that you gain the upper hand?

We have a heroic people who have never knelt down. The victory will be ours, and if we still die, then better standing than on our knees. We have our vision, we have something that we want to fight for. Our grandchildren will grow up here. And if we die ourselves, our grandchildren will live as one must live, that is in a free country.

In much of the Western mass media it is reported that in reality the insurgents are composed of Russian special units or parts of the regular Russian army. What do you think?

We are not fighting for Russia, we are fighting for our people. Russia is a free country, a country where one can freely live without submissive bows to the United States and the EU. We know how you can live in Russia and we want to live like that as well. We do not want to bow before anyone, or worship anybody. We are a free people.

What do you think is wrong with the new Ukrainian Government? What caused this movement in the Donbass region?

These people have come to power through blood. Now they want to drown the whole Ukraine in the blood. Although they talk about the “free Ukraine” this country was never free, it always had to be subordinate to someone. Now the Ukraine is knuckling under to the United States of America, a country that suppresses all countries and is inciting wars everywhere. Actually, this country [USA] should be eliminated completely from the Atlas. Well, for the time being we will reach Poland, there we will wash our boots and then we will go on.

Back to the previous question: are the insurgents primarily local citizens or are they mostly Russian volunteers or even the nasty Russian army, dressed up with foreign uniforms, as some claim?

Insurgents are people who just yesterday were working with a hoe and a spade; who cared for their gardens. Then they laid down their tools and now they protect their gardens with machine guns. We are freedom-loving people. Even women, children and seniors go fight with us.

How would you describe the ideology of the people who have come to power in Kiev? In the West they say, of course, that they are flawless Democrats, who simply want to be different than Russians. Would you call them Democrats or perhaps something else?

I understand democracy in the way that one can express his will; and not that someone else speaks on your behalf. I still remember how you voted about the separation [of the USSR]: at that time also nobody cared to listen to us. Even now they are pursuing a unilateral policy. They want to see only that, what happens on the other side [in the Western Ukraine]. They are unaware of the suffering of our mothers and fathers. This is not a democracy, but fascism in its worst form. Not even fascists have killed children in this way, destroyed houses, poisoning the land with ecologically dangerous bombs. They bombard us with white phosphorous bombs and cluster munitions. They bombard us with cluster bombs, so that millions of small metal particles fly in all directions and on whole streets, everyone is killed, including women and children. After such bombings nothing is left, not even animals, but only burnt earth. Is this democracy? Do they fight this way for democracy? No, that is fascism.

Who fights on the side of the Ukrainian army? What is meant by foreigners?

We had prisoners of war from Poland. There are very many foreign instructors, granade launchers. Our [Ukrainian] soldiers do not want to fight, according to the prisoners of war, thus they are threatening them and their families with death. In the Ukrainian army they are even killing wounded.

So people in the vicinity of Kramatorsk were massacred, their organs have been retrieved; then their bodies were buried with tractors and compacted on top with armored cars. So they are hiding the evidence of their crimes. This also applies to Krasnodon: they destroyed their own people. (Editor’s note: compare with video)

The insurgents, the so-called “terrorists”, have left no one wounded in the lurch. They also help the civilians, the sick, all those in need.

So there are actually facts that they retrieved organs, apparently to sell them?

Yes. There is someone they can ask about this, can’t they? [ask to another insurgent]. We have people from Kramatorsk, who observed that.

Have you seen it with your own eyes?

Yes, with my own eyes. (Another insurgent in the background): We cannot reveal our sources.

You do not need to do. Such information before was at the level of “someone has heard that someone has heard” …

Why, yes! That has been seen even by our reconnaissance. Even prisoners of war confirm this. Bodies were buried with excavators.

Apart from the Polish, who else is fighting [against you]?

If we link up into their radio conversations, we hear foreign languages. But I don’t know which ones. And the Poles are found everywhere.

Why did they come? Are they mercenaries or regular units, sent here by force?

These are people, among others, who are even willing to pay to be allowed to hunt people. They pay that they may fire on living people with sniper rifles. If there are no insurgents, they shoot civilians. For example, there was a man driving to work with his bicycle and they have shot off his head just for fun.

Do you mean a specific case?

Yes, a week ago. The man was completely harmless. A sniper shot him, for fun. (Another insurgent in the background): We’ve seen it, it was a hundred meters away from us. He was just going to work.

I have read about such cases, but I have not heard directly of that.

That was in Krasnopartisansk.

Why do the new leaders consider themselves entitled to kill such vast amounts of people? There used to whining all over the world, that allegedly some students on the Maidan were beaten. Now thousands are dying, and nobody cares. Why? Why the double moral standards – what ideology is it?

[About] these double standards, I understand the following: Ukraine executes commands from the West, it has no will of its own. Ukraine is eliminating people who are in the way for the coal and gas production of the Americans. They do not need our people here and destroy them therefore, area-wide. It is not a question of eliminating some of us, it is about to annihilate us comprehensively, using Grad [rocket] launchers, mines, surface-to-surface systems [ballistic missiles]. There are bombs, which leave a crater three metres deep and eight metres wide. Within a radius of 300 meters nothing is left alive. Thus, they destroy cities. Women and children are hiding in cellars and they burn them there with flame-throwers and explosives. They do not “only” kill families, but inhabitants of entire apartment buildings. The killing of insurgents’ wives is particularly enjoyed. Is it even possible not to fight against those guys? We are simply obliged to neutralize this contagious infection that is spreading in our country.

If we consider the situation realistically: at the end of 2013 the Ukrainian army had about 4,000 armoured cars according to official data. The insurgents have only a few of them, so you cannot compare the forces. This huge mass [the Ukrainian army] is overwhelming and additionally there are these, for example, Polish armored cars. How can you beat this endless mass?

They fight for the money or out of fear that their families may be hurt, if they fight badly, or something similar. We fight for the lives of our children, for our country. That is a big difference. They fight without a vision and we have one. This will always win. We do not feed ourselves as well, but our spirit is stronger than theirs. No doubt, we will win because we are fighting for our people, while they came to our region, to take it away from us.

Were there cases that the Ukrainian army shelled buses or cars in which were clearly refugees?

Several times – even if it was written in large letters [on cars] that there were children. They shot at big crowds before customs houses. They fired at a seven-kilometer queue with grenade launchers and howitzers. People were running in all directions and left their stuff. As a slightly different example, next to the border an alarm system responded very loud at something; the children from the Donetsk region, from Kramatorsk thought that they would soon be bombarded. Which psyche can such children have?

What else is the Ukrainian army doing that you definitely do not know in the West?

Even people from the Stone Age have not done anything like these people in the 21st century. They torture, they kill people, break arms, cut off fingers, chop off heads and see how long you can still walk without a head. Everything you can imagine as horrible at all, they already do. We speak the same language, we had the same ABC-books at the school, so it is incomprehensible to me, through what influence they became the way they are.

Can you give specific examples? Without a name.

They shot at refugees, i.e. people who are already scared, with grenade launchers; with machine guns as in a shooting gallery, if people were clearly visible on a street. They did not shot to warn, but to kill. By the side of the road cars are lying around and they [Ukrainian army] do not allow the bodies to be picked up. Accordingly it smelled noisome due to decomposition of the bodies. Only after the liberation of the area the corpses could be removed. So they are fighting so against children, against women; and yet once they see armed men they lay down their arms and surrender with a white flag.

Regarding Boeing [MH17]: In the West it was proclaimed immediately – without ifs and buts – that the insurgents shot down the aircraft. [They said] Putin had given both the money and the BUK [missile] system, so Putin is to blame personally. Anything you can say?

I know nothing about that, but it is clear that the insurgents would never shoot down an airliner. Insurgents are fighting for people’s lives and it is unimaginable to save people with one hand and to execute people with the other hand.

Were there cases, where the Ukrainian army shelled towns and villages, when there was no insurgency at all?

This is their action model: first they use mines and missiles and then they penetrate into the cities. First they destroy and then they begin to “protect” the destroyed. They destroy absolutely everything. They destroy the people as one chops down a forest. They do not care whether it’s women or children, disabled people in wheelchairs, no matter whether there are insurgents in the city or not.

What use is it to shoot peaceful cities and civilians? What do they want to achieve with this?

We have here the city of Molodogwardejsk. Although there are no rebels at all, this town has been destroyed from a safe distance with howitzers. For them it is simply to destroy cities and leave a desert. Why do they do it, you have to ask them yourself. In the meantime we can now not even trust their white flag. Under the white flag, they perform regrouping of their forces and then begin to shoot again. You can no longer trust them – neither the army nor the Government. This is scum of humanity. When you look at their resumes, it becomes clear that they belong in a zoo. Until they sit in cages, children don’t have to be afraid of them any more. That would be my only wish.

How can you explain that even in some areas of the South East [of Ukraine] the junta has currently de facto won, for example, in Dnepropetrovsk? Why have large parts of the population changed sides ideologically? Why isn’t there any significant resistance?

Our country is poor. At first poor people earned from participating at the Maidan. You just went there [to Kiev] to earn the money. There it took people, to create large crowds – I would say herds of people. There they were given drugs, e.g. in tea. By the way, after their return home they have detected withdrawal symptoms in them. In addition, they received a brainwashing at Maidan. And only the people from Donbass were not going there; they had to work in this industrial area, they had to earn the money for the whole country, feeding the country. Therefore they still cannot subdue us. We have endured it as long as we could it. But at some point we could not any longer, which led to the uprising. It was always so in Russia: they harness slowly, but they ride fast.

What will happen with these cities [outside of the Donbass] now? Certainly one can assume that the vast majority of them are also against the Kiev Government, but this majority is suppressed and stays silent. But in my opinion, they should also liberated, otherwise they will be taken sooner or later, so that they support the junta. Then they are lost forever.

But we will liberate these towns as well. We will not punish anyone; everybody can have his own opinion. We will present our point of view, but will not impose our opinion. If someone wants to follow us, just go ahead, but if not, then not. Then they can simply go to lead their lives, to work.

It is summer. It is still warm and the streets are well passable. But in winter it is cold, un-asphalted roads will become impassable dirt, so that you can hardly deliver humanitarian aid from Russia. In many cities there is now no electricity, no water, no heating. How will you survive then?

We are a strong people. We are used to difficulties. And we will overcome these obstructions as well, whether in rain or snowstorms. We are serious about what we have started, and we will not stop now just like that. We will fight to the end, there is no way back.

Is there evidence that Americans sit in the military administration and give orders?

I can say nothing about that. Everyone makes his task here and since I’m not a scout I am not able to answer the question.

To what extent does the local population support the insurgents: Is it 95%, 70%, 50%?

You can judge for yourself: people harvest potatoes and give us some of it. People harvest three tomatoes in the garden and give us two of them.

If we look back to the times when there were no armed insurgents, but the junta had already proceeded disproportionately; how did people fight against them back then?

They fought with sticks against machine guns. They quit their jobs, left their families and came to us from everywhere. This concerned those as well, who did ignore the whole thing. Meanwhile, they changed their mind and protected their country. Many changed their bad habits, abstaining from alcohol. Among the insurgents, generally, iron discipline reigns and it is strictly forbidden to drink alcohol. The people are not paid. They fight for an idea. They eat what they are given from the civilians. All are highly motivated, but the sooner the whole thing comes to an end, the better.

What has changed in the towns and villages under control of the insurgents? For example, I read that they close casinos and pursue drug traffickers…

The Ukrainian police fought for 23 years against such phenomena as corruption and drugs, but without success. We have fixed it immediately. Drugs have become the absolute rarity. Something is changing in people’s minds and even alcoholics and drug addicts are changing their habits. In our shops you can buy vodka easily, but nobody does. Addicts tell themselves – maybe as a joke – that they will take no more drugs before victory. Anyway, there are no more drugs.

Within the liberated towns, factories and coal mines are destroyed; there is no work. How can you live there?

We will rebuild it, as we did after the Great Patriotic War. Our enthusiasm will be enough for that. Even if our generation will live in poverty, the next generation will live better. We are not afraid.

From the Russian side you receive humanitarian aid, which is generally known. But who delivers this assistance: the State, any parties, the church, private individuals?

You have access to these packages. Take pictures, the packages are labeled.

In the store for humanitarian aid I’ve seen many packages by the Communist Party, from churches…

Also from veterans of the Afghan war, by Chernobyl veterans, by the Communist Party, from the people who know what a war is like.

Do western organizations also provide humanitarian assistance in South-East?

And how! They deliver mines and projectiles for the Ukrainian army. In this way they help the Ukraine and this assistance helps then to destroy normal people.

So, there is no real humanitarian aid [from the West]?

It does not exist, I’ve never seen any. The same applies for medical help.

Interview Video (English subtitles) – 8:15

Video: Recorded by Fedot Panteleev.  Subtitles by Marcel Sardo

Text: Translated from German by Joerg Braun. Edited by S. Naylor.

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/18/interview-with-a-rebel-part-1/

Reprinted in :
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nazi-safaris-in-ukraine-militiaman-fighting-against-government-forces-speaks-out-some-are-willing-to-pay-to-hunt-insurgents/5396524
Nazi Safaris in Ukraine: Militiaman Fighting Against Government Forces Speaks Out – “Some Are Willing to Pay to Hunt Insurgents”

The Beginning of World Shift

by Thierry Meyssan

Anglo-Saxon agression against Russia is taking the form of financial and economic warfare. However, Moscow is preparing for armed hostilities by developing its agricultural self-sufficency and multiplying its alliances. For Thierry Meyssan, after the creation of the caliphate in the Levant, Washington would lay down a new card in September in St. Petersburg. The ability of Russia to maintain its internal stability will determine the course of events.

Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 13 August 2014

The offensive led by Anglos-Saxons (USA, UK and Israel) for world domination continues on two lines simultaneously: both the creation of the “Greater Middle East” (Greater Middle East) by attacking simultaneously Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and separating Russia from the European Union through the crisis they organised in Ukraine.

In this sprint, it seems that Washington wants to impose the dollar as the single currency in the gas market, the energy source of the twenty-first century, the way it imposed it on the oil [1] market. The Western media hardly cover the war in Donbass and their population is ignorant of the scale of the fighting, the US military presence, the number of civilian casualties, the wave of refugees. On the other hand, Western media have a delayed reaction to events in North Africa and the Levant, presenting them either as the result of a so-called “Arab Spring” (that is to say, in practice, a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood), or as the destructive effect of a civilization which is inherently violent. More than ever, it is necessary to help the Arabs who are incapable of living peacefully in the absence of Western settlers.

Russia is now the leading power capable of leading the resistance to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It has three tools: BRICS, an alliance of economic rivals who know they can not grow up without one another, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a strategic alliance with China to stabilize Central Asia and finally, the Organization for Collective Security Treaty, a military alliance of former Soviet states.

At the Fortaleza Summit (Brazil), which was held from July 14 to 16, BRICS took the plunge and announced the creation of a monetary reserve fund (mainly Chinese) and a BRICS Bank as alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the dollar system [2].

Even before this announcement, the Anglo-Saxons had established their answer: the transformation of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in order to prepare unrest among all Muslim peoples of Russia and China. [3] They continued their offensive in Syria and spilled over the borders both in Iraq and in Lebanon. They failed however to expel part of the Palestinians to Egypt and to destabilize the region even more deeply. Finally, they keep away from Iran to give President Hassan Rohani a chance to weaken the power of the anti-imperialist Khomeinists.

Two days after the announcement of the BRICS, the United States accused Russia of destroying Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over the Donbass, killing 298 people. On this basis, purely arbitrary, they forced the Europeans to enter into economic war against Russia. Situating itself as a court, the Council of the European Union tried and convicted Russia without any evidence and without giving it an opportunity to defend itself. The CEU issued “sanctions” against its financial system.

Recognizing that European leaders are not working for the interests of their people, but for those of the Anglo-Saxons, Russia has gnawed at the bit and refrained from going to war in Ukraine. It supports the insurgents with arms and intelligence, and hosts more than 500,000 refugees, but declines to send troops into the fray. It probably will not happen until the vast majority of Ukrainians revolt against President Poroshenko, even if it does not enter the country until after the fall of the People’s Republic of Donetsk.

Faced with economic warfare, Moscow has chosen to respond with similar measures, but in agriculture, not finance. Two considerations guided this choice: first, short-term, other BRICS can mitigate the consequences of so-called “sanctions”; on the other hand, medium and long term, Russia is preparing for war and intends to completely rebuild its agriculture to go it alone.

Moreover, the Anglo-Saxons have planned to paralyze Russia from within. First by activating, via the Islamic Emirate (EIS), terrorist groups within its Muslim population, and organizing a media challenge in the municipal elections of September 14. Large sums of money have been distributed to all opposition candidates in the thirty largest cities involved, while at least 50,000 Ukrainian agitators, mixed with refugees, are regrouping in St. Petersburg. Most of them have dual Russian citizenship. This is clearly to reproduce at the provincial level protests that followed the elections in Moscow in December 2011 – with the addtition of violence; and engage the country in a color revolution process to which certain officials in the ruling class are favorable.

To do so, Washington has appointed a new ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, who had prepared the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine.

It will be important for President Vladimir Putin to be able to trust his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, whom Washington hoped to recruit to overthrow him.

Considering the imminent danger, Moscow would have been able to convince Beijing to accept the accession of India in exchange for that of Iran (but also those of Pakistan and Mongolia) to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO ). The decision should be published at the summit in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) on September 12 and 13. It should put an end to the conflict which has opposed India and China for centuries and engage them in military cooperation. This reversal, if confirmed, also would end the honeymoon between New Delhi and Washington who was hoping to distance India from Russia in particular by giving access to nuclear technologies. The membership of New Delhi is also a bet on the sincerity of the new Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, despite the suspicion that he encouraged anti-Muslim violence in 2002 in Gujarat when he was the leading Minister.

In addition, the accession of Iran, which is a provocation in the face of Washington, should give the SCO precise knowledge of jihadist movements and ways to counter them. Again, if confirmed, it would reduce Iran’s willingness to negotiate a lull with the “Great Satan” that led it to elect Sheik Hassan Rohani to the presidency. It would be a gamble on the authority of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Indeed, these memberships would mark the beginning of the shift in the world from the West to the East. [4] Still, this trend must be protected militarily. This is the role of the Organization for Collective Security Treaty (CSTO), formed around Russia, but to which China does not belong. Unlike NATO, this organization is a classic alliance, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations since each member retains the option to leave if it wants. So it is based on this freedom that Washington has tried in recent months to buy some members, including Armenia. However, the chaotic situation in Ukraine appears to have cooled those who dreamed of US “protection”.

Tension is likely to increase in the coming weeks.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation Roger Lagasse

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185074.html

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185053.html — Русский

Начало эпохи великих перемен

Тьерри Мейсан

Агрессия англосаксов против России принимает форму финансово-экономической войны. Однако Москва готовится и к отражению вооружённой агрессии, стремясь обеспечить продовольственную независимость и множа свои союзы. По мнению Тьерри Мейсана после создания халифата в Леванте Вашингтон должен «побить новую карту» в сентябре в Санкт-Петербурге. Ход дальнейших событий будет зависеть от способности России сохранять внутреннюю стабильность.

Сеть Вольтер | Дамаск (Сирия) | 11 августа 2014

грессия, проводимая англосаксами (Соединённые Штаты, Соединённое Королевство и Израиль) с целью поддержания мирового господства осуществляется одновременно по двум направлениям: созданием «Большого Среднего Востока» (Greater Middle East) с помощью войн в Ираке, Сирии, Ливане и Палестине и отделением России от Европейского Союза с помощью организованного на Украине кризиса.

В этой скоростной гонке Вашингтон, кажется, хочет навязать доллар в качестве единственной валюты на рынке газа – источнике энергии XXI века, как он его навязал на нефтяном рынке [1].

Западные СМИ почти ничего не сообщают о войне на Донбассе и население этих стран ничего не знает о масштабных боях, участии в них американских военных, числе жертв среди гражданского населения, потоке беженцев. Наоборот, западные СМИ с опозданием освещают события в странах Магреба и в Леванте, но представляют их как следствие «арабской весны (то есть, практически, как захват власти «Братьями-мусульманами), либо как разрушительное действие самой по себе стремительно развивающейся цивилизации. Поэтому, как никогда ранее, необходимо придти на помощь арабам, неспособным жить мирно в отсутствие западных колонистов.

Сегодня Россия является главной державой, способной оказать сопротивление англосаксонскому империализму. Она располагает тремя инструментами: БРИКС –союз экономических соперников, способных развиваться только совместно, Шанхайская Организация сотрудничества – стратегический альянс с Китаем по стабилизации Центральной Азии и, наконец, Организация Договора о коллективной безопасности – военный союз бывших советских республик.

На встрече в верхах в Форталеза (Бразилия), проходившей с 14 по 16 июля, страны БРИКС отважились на создание валютного резервного фонда (в основном китайского) и Банка БРИКС в качестве альтернативы Международному валютному фонду и мировому Банку, то есть всей долларовой системе [2].

Эти меры были приняты в ответ на преобразование англосаксами террористической Аль Каиды в халифат с целью посеять смуту среди мусульманского населения России и Китая [3]. Своё наступление они начали в Сирии, а затем продолжили в Ираке и Ливане. Но им не удалось изгнать часть населения Палестины в Египет и ещё глубже дестабилизировать весь регион. К тому же они обходят стороной Иран, предоставляя президенту Хассану Рохани возможность ослабить антиимпериалистическое движение хомейнистов.

Через два дня после заявления БРИКС, Соединённые Штаты обвинили Россию в уничтожении гражданского самолёта MH17 компании Malaysia Airlines над Донбассом и гибели 298 человек. На этом основании и по собственному произволу они вынудили европейцев вступить в экономическую войну с Россией. Не обладая судебными полномочиями, Совет Европейского Союза осудил и вынес России приговор, не дав ей возможности защищаться. Он объявил санкции против её финансовой системы.

Сознавая, что руководители европейских стран не служат интересам своих народов, а лишь интересам англосаксов, Россия, сжав зубы, так и не вступила в войну на Украине. Она поддерживает повстанцев вооружениями и разведданными, а также предоставила убежище более чем 500 000 беженцев, но воздерживается направлять туда войска и не хочет попасть в переплёт. Вероятно, она не будет вмешиваться до тех пор, пока подавляющее большинство украинцев не восстанет против президента Порошенко, и, возможно, не войдёт в эту страну, даже если падёт Донецкая народная республика.

В объявленной ей экономической войне Москва отвечает симметричными мерами, но они касаются только сельхозпродукции, а не финансов. Этот выбор обусловлен двумя соображениями: с одной стороны, в краткосрочном плане страны БРИКС могут временно ослабить последствия так называемых «санкций»; с другой стороны, в средне срочном и долгосрочном плане Россия готовится к войне и намерена полностью перестроить свое сельскохозяйственное производство и стать самодостаточной.

Кроме того англосаксы сделали всё для того, чтобы взорвать Россию изнутри. Прежде всего, с помощью Исламского Государства они создали террористические группировки из числа мусульманского населения, а после этого намерены организовать с помощью СМИ массовые протесты в период муниципальных выборов 14 сентября. Всем кандидатам от оппозиции в тридцати крупных городах выделены значительные суммы денег, а 50 000 украинских агитаторов, внедрённых в состав беженцев, группируются в Санкт-Петербурге. Большинство из них имеют двойное гражданство. Очевидно, речь идёт об организации в провинции демонстраций и беспорядков, подобных тем, которые были проведены в Москве во время выборов в декабре 2011 года, и вовлечении страны в процесс цветной революции, которую приветствует часть чиновников и некоторые представители правящего класса.

С этой целью Вашингтон направил в Россию нового посла Джона Теффта, который готовил «революцию роз» в Грузии и государственный переворот на Украине.

Для президента Владимира Путина важно заручиться поддержкой Премьер-министра Дмитрия Медведева, с помощью которого Вашингтон намеревался его свергнуть.

Наре́ндра Мо́ди

Считая опасность неминуемой, Москва, возможно, убедит Пекин согласиться с вступлением Индии вместо Ирана (а также Пакистана и Монголии) в Шанхайскую организацию сотрудничества (ШОС). Об этом решении по-видимому будет объявлено на саммите, который состоится в Душанбе (Таджикистан) 12 и 13 сентября. Оно должно положить конец конфликту, длящемуся в течение нескольких веков между Китаем и Индией, и вовлечь их в венное сотрудничество. Этот поворот, если он состоится, завершит также медовый месяц для Нью-Дели и Вашингтона, который рассчитывал дистанцировать Индию от России, предоставляя ей доступ к ядерным технологиям. Вступление Нью-Дели явится также подтверждением искренности для нового Премьер-министра Наренджа Моди, над которым нависло подозрение в поддержке антимусульманских выступлений в 2002 году в Гуджарате, где он был в то время Главным министром.

Али Хаменеи

Кроме всего прочего, вступление Ирана, которое для Вашингтона представляется провокационным, должно обеспечить ШОС точной информацией о джихадистских движениях и средствах противодействия им. Так что, если это подтвердится, желание у Ирана продолжать переговоры с «Великим Сатаной», который способствовал избранию президентом шейха Хассана Рохани, поубавится. Вступление в ШОС Ирана стало бы также подтверждением власти верховного лидера исламской революции аятоллы Али Хаменеи.

По факту, новые вступления в ШОС ознаменуют собой начало смены ролей Запада и Востока [4]. Остаётся только, чтобы такой ход событий был подкреплён военной силой. Эта задача возложена на Организацию Договора коллективной безопасности ( ОДКБ), во главе с Россией, но Китай не входит в неё. В отличие от НАТО эта организация представляет собой обычный альянс, отвечающий принципам Хартии ООН, поскольку каждый член сохраняет возможность выйти из неё, если захочет. Опираясь на эту свободу, Вашингтон попытался в течение нескольких последних месяцев подкупить некоторых членов, в частности, Армению. Однако ситуация неопределённости на Украине, кажется, остудила тех, кто мечтал об американской «протекции».

Поэтому не исключено, что напряжённость на протяжении ближайших недель будет расти.

Тьерри Мейсан

Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185053.html

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185074.html English