October 7th, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
A large banner sporting a picture of the Russian President and the word ‘Peacemaker’ was hung over the Manhattan Bridge on the night of 6th October, 2016.
October 7th, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
A large banner sporting a picture of the Russian President and the word ‘Peacemaker’ was hung over the Manhattan Bridge on the night of 6th October, 2016.
Americans who oppose U.S. foreign policy must also disconnect from those in the banking industry, for instance, that perpetuate these disastrous policies. Local community banking and credit unions generally keep money locally and away from predatory investments. There are also credit cards that are socially responsible. Green America compiled a list of banking institutions, and a simple internet search will also bring up a number of credit card companies that actually do good.
The public can pull the plug in many simple ways.
80-year-old member of the Rothschild dynasty, Jacob Rothschild is confident that the United States can find support in some of the Russian elites, he said on American political TV show.
“The current crisis may last much less time than the cold war. At the moment the US has allies among the Russian elites, who are ready to take over the initiative. In this scenario, ordinary people will not notice anything. The course of Russia’s foreign policy will change – this will be presented as some kind of achievement of Russian diplomacy,” – said Rothschild.
Meanwhile Rothschild is sure that the so-called conflict of the Russian elites is in the final stage.
“A part of Russian elite insists that the Russian leadership pushes for the lifting of sanctions. Part are against concessions to the West. Next year we’ll know who won,” – said Rothschild.
It is worth noting that since September 30, 2016, a video of the famous Donbass defender Igor Girkin (Strelkov) lashing out at Putin has been circulating online. Strelkov makes it clear that his followers are ready to protest, and did not shy from personal insults towards Putin.
Earlier those Russian experts who favor Putin dubbed Strelkov “the fifth column”. Who is Strelkov’s sponsor remains a mystery.
***
KK:
Every country has its patriots and traitors, and it’s no doubt that Rothschild is not exaggerating. He seems very well informed for a government outsider. Strelkov is the least of Putin’s worries. The tentacles of the sprout reach far and wide and there is no doubt America has its ‘allies’ deeply planted in every strategic sector of the Russian society. But so they did in the 90’s but it did not prevent an emergence of a new strong and defiant leader seemingly out of nowhere. Undoubtedly America succeeded in enslaving much of the world, but Russia is no stranger to such attempts. Whenever Russia was plunged into dark times it has found its way out.
Apparently for America a victory means complete defeat and surrender of the opponent, which is consistent with it’s adherence to the law of the jungle in international politics. It has worked so far as long as 95% of global population are content with the status quo. However everyone understands that sharing a pie is better than giving it all to one, and global leaders and their constituents are watching Putin’s moves with envy and anticipation. In that regard we can safely conclude that Putin himself has many more silent allies among global elites than he is even aware of.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/jacob-rothschild-us-has-allies-among.html
<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/z9uLtTrFSX8″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>
<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/vqZmBzArH70″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>
“Welcome to Donbass” is an Italian-made documentary in multiple short parts. Directed by Di Matteo & Benignetti. Below are Parts 1-3.
<iframe width=”600″ height=”400″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/g5IUwSqhg3c” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>
Parts 1-3 were posted here:
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/welcome-to-donbass-documentary-defies.html
The bill’s list of means for supporting democracy in Ukraine includes the supply of lethal defensive weapons systems. The legislation will come into force following a vote in the Senate and its signing by the US President. From that point on, Washington will be able to officially supply lethal weapons to Ukraine.
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
To contain, reverse, and deter Russian aggression in Ukraine, to assist Ukraine’s democratic transition, and for other purposes.
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act” or “STAND for Ukraine Act”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Statements of policy.
Sec. 101. United States policy against recognition of territorial changes effected by force alone.
Sec. 102. Prohibitions against United States recognition of the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea.
Sec. 103. Determinations and codification of sanctions under Executive Order No. 13685.
Sec. 201. Prohibiting certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers with respect to the Russian Federation.
Sec. 202. Report on certain foreign financial institutions.
Sec. 203. Requirements relating to transfers of defense articles and defense services to the Russian Federation.
Sec. 301. Strategy to respond to Russian Federation-supported information and propaganda efforts directed toward Russian-speaking communities in countries bordering the Russian Federation.
Sec. 302. Cost limitation.
Sec. 303. Sunset.
(a) In General.—It is the policy of the United States to further assist the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity to contain, reverse, and deter Russian aggression in Ukraine. That policy shall be carried into effect, among other things, through a comprehensive effort, in coordination with allies and partners of the United States where appropriate, that includes sanctions, diplomacy, and assistance, including lethal defensive weapons systems, for the people of Ukraine intended to enhance their ability to consolidate a rule of law-based democracy with a free market economy and to exercise their right under international law to self-defense.
(b) Additional Statement Of Policy.—It is further the policy of the United States—
(1) to use its voice, vote, and influence in international fora to encourage others to provide assistance that is similar to assistance described in subsection (a) to Ukraine; and
(2) to ensure that any relevant sanctions relief for the Russian Federation is contingent on timely, complete, and verifiable implementation of the Minsk Agreements, especially the restoration of Ukraine’s control of the entirety of its eastern border with the Russian Federation in the conflict zone.
Between the years of 1940 and 1991, the United States did not recognize the forcible incorporation and annexation of the three Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the Soviet Union under a policy known as the “Stimson Doctrine”.
(a) In General.—In accordance with United States policy enumerated in section 101, no Federal department or agency should take any action or extend any assistance that recognizes or implies any recognition of the de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its territorial waters.
(b) Documents Portraying Crimea As Part Of Russian Federation.—In accordance with United States policy enumerated in section 101, the Government Printing Office should not print any map, document, record, or other paper of the United States portraying or otherwise indicating Crimea as part of the territory of the Russian Federation.
…
(a) Determinations.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that contains the assessment described in paragraph (2).
(2) ASSESSMENT DESCRIBED.—The assessment described in this paragraph is—
(A) a review of each person designated pursuant to Executive Order No. 13660 (March 6, 2014; 79 Fed. Reg. 13493; relating to blocking property of certain persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine) or Executive Order No. 13661 (March 16, 2014; 79 Fed. Reg. 15535; relating to blocking property of additional persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine); and
(B) a determination as to whether any such person meets the criteria for designation pursuant to Executive Order No. 13685 (December 19, 2014; 79 Fed. Reg. 77357; relating to blocking property of certain persons and prohibiting certain transactions with respect to the Crimea region of Ukraine).
(3) FORM.—The assessment required by paragraph (2) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.
(b) Codification.—United States sanctions provided for in Executive Order No. 13685, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall remain in effect until the date on which the President submits to the appropriate congressional committees a certification described in subsection (c).
(c) Certification.—A certification described in this subsection is a certification of the President that Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea has been restored.
(d) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict the authority of the President to impose additional United States sanctions with specific respect to the Russian Federation’s occupation of Crimea pursuant to Executive Order No. 13685.
…
A section has frequent references to those who are “contributing to the situation in Ukraine.”
The Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–95; 22 U.S.C. 8901 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new sections:TITLE III—OTHER MATTERS
(a) In General.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall develop and implement a strategy to respond to Russian Federation-supported disinformation and propaganda efforts directed toward persons in countries bordering the Russian Federation.
(b) Matters To Be Included.—The strategy required under subsection (a) should include the following:
(1) Development of a response to propaganda and disinformation campaigns as an element of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, specifically—
(A) assistance in building the capacity of the Ukrainian military to document conflict zones and disseminate information in real-time;
(B) assistance in enhancing broadcast capacity with terrestrial television transmitters in Eastern Ukraine; and
(C) media training for officials of the Government of Ukraine.
(2) Establishment of a partnership with partner governments and private-sector entities to provide Russian-language entertainment and news content to broadcasters in Russian-speaking communities bordering the Russian Federation.
(3) Assessment of the extent of Russian Federation influence in political parties, financial institutions, media organizations, and other entities seeking to exert political influence and sway public opinion in favor of Russian Federation policy across Europe.
(c) Report.—The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a) and its implementation.
…
No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 2016.
|
Cosponsor |
Date Cosponsored |
|---|---|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
04/28/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/13/2016 |
|
|
05/17/2016 |
|
|
05/23/2016 |
|
|
05/23/2016 |
|
|
05/25/2016 |
|
|
05/25/2016 |
|
|
05/26/2016 |
|
|
06/03/2016 |
|
|
06/15/2016 |
|
|
07/05/2016 |
|
|
07/06/2016 |
|
|
07/11/2016 |
|
|
07/21/2016 |
|
|
07/25/2016 |
The act’s adoption was an expected development. After all, it is well known that a Ukrainian lobby effectively works in the US and throughout the West. During his visit to New York, Poroshenko (right) met with representatives of the Ukrainian Diaspora who have had strong positions in American political circles since the end of the Second World War.
As a point of comparison, the numerous Russian diaspora in the US and its organizations, and in particular the Congress of Russian Americans, are nowhere close to matching the efficiency of Ukrainian circles’ lobbying activism. The fault for this, in my opinion, can be assigned to both sides, both Russian Americans themselves and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and other government agencies and non-governmental organizations.
However, his assignation of fault is incorrect. They U.S. government has sponsored ultra-nationalist Ukrainian individuals and promoted this agenda since the close of World War II. This has been a concerted and well-funded campaign to destabilize Ukraine and make it a U.S. vassal state. This “efficiency” is U.S. government-backed. That’s hard to beat.
Given Russia’s continued efforts at diplomacy, it seems that Russian leaders can’t quite believe that America is such a determined Russian foe. However, it’s now becoming brutally clear what America’s intentions are and have always been.
…But the experience of American support for “democracy” around the world attests to the fact that the US Congress is in fact promising new bloodshed and destruction for the people of Ukraine and Donbass. Ukrainians have never been good strategists, and this obvious truth has never benefitted the majority. One only needs to look at the experience of former Yugoslavia or that of Libya and Syria to be assured that America’s “benevolence” towards the people of Ukraine will only lead to the further division of the country and new victims. The US is not interested in a strong Ukraine, but in deterring Russia at any cost. For them, Ukrainians are but expendable material, just like the people of Donbass.
…Although lethal weapons were illegally delivered earlier, as many Donbass militiamen and even Ukrainian soldiers have exposed, the official green light to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons in fact makes the US a party in the armed conflict in the former Ukraine.
… will put the blame on the United States for participating in the murder of the peaceful population of Donbass.
Just a few links …
The White House and State Department are miffed that Syria and Russia are cleaning up their Jihadis in Aleppo city.
There is a false claims evolving in western “news” that the current Aleppo operation led to the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement. Two points on this:
1. The ceasefire did not “break down”. It expired after a previously agreed period. Both sides did not agree to a prolongation.
2. The most important ceasefire point was the physical separation of al-Qaida and other U.S. proxy rebels. The U.S. was unable (or unwilling) to fulfill that point.
See: Moscow Makes Public Full Text of Russia-US Deal on Syria
The main priority in Syria, according to the document, is the demarcation of territory controlled by Daesh and al-Nusra Front terrorist groups and territories controlled by Syrian rebels.
After the end of the ceasefire the U.S. and its subaltern allies are flooding Syria with new weapons:
Both rockets and MANPADs are part of a “Plan-B” the CIA had already developed in May 2015 but which was held back until now. There are likely additional military elements to this plan. On the diplomatic side the U.S. (and its stooges) -obviously unable to act rationally- now imitate defiant children. “If we can’t get exactly what we want we will never again talk to you.”
A very major issue for Syria (and one reason why many Syrians flee the country) are U.S. and EU sanctions. Their consequences were so far hardly ever reported. Here is the first major piece in U.S. media about them: U.S. and EU Sanctions Are Punishing Ordinary Syrians and Crippling Aid Work, U.N. Report Reveals
In a 40-page internal assessment commissioned to analyze the humanitarian impact of the sanctions, the U.N. describes the U.S. and EU measures as “some of the most complicated and far-reaching sanctions regimes ever imposed.” Detailing a complex system of “unpredictable and time-consuming” financial restrictions and licensing requirements, the report finds that U.S. sanctions are exceptionally harsh “regarding provision of humanitarian aid.”
…
An internal U.N. email obtained by The Intercept also faults U.S. and EU sanctions for contributing to food shortages and deteriorations in health care.
…
The email went on to cite sanctions as a “principal factor” in the erosion of Syria’s health care system.
The piece also explains that the Syrian and Russian behavior towards insurgent occupied cities is in no way more severe than the usual U.S. procedures:
Meanwhile, in cities controlled by ISIS, the U.S. has employed some of the same tactics it condemns. For example, U.S.-backed ground forces laid siege to Manbij, a city in northern Syria not far from Aleppo that is home to tens of thousands of civilians. U.S. airstrikes pounded the city over the summer, killing up to 125 civilians in a single attack. The U.S. replicated this strategy to drive ISIS out of Kobane, Ramadi, and Fallujah, leaving behind flattened neighborhoods. In Fallujah, residents resorted to eating soup made from grass and 140 people reportedly died from lack of food and medicine during the siege.
To help with the sanctions and other issues China had recently agreed with Syria to provide medical support. But just like Russia, China is now considered a U.S. enemy and the CIA and Pentagon are eager to fight it.
Risky business: Is US supporting anti-Chinese militants in Syria?
With war hawks in US/Turkey/Qatar/Saudi arming and funding anti-Chinese militants in Syria that are planning more attacks on Chinese embassies and interests abroad, coupled with US gunboat diplomacy in the South China Sea, this dangerous “deterring the dragon” combination risks turning into a “provoking the dragon” scenario, and may escalate into a military conflict between two nuclear powers.
(The piece also includes this vignette about the anti-Chinese TIP Uighurs in Syria:
Later videos emerged of US/UK-funded White Helmet members with two captured young Syrian soldiers in Kahn Touman, and taunting “Assad, Russia, Iran and China, are they stronger than god?” The two soldiers were later executed by TIP militants.)
U.S. official: THAAD to be deployed to deter North Korea threats
THAAD is a long range missile defense system. Putting it into South Korea makes no sense if one wants to counter shorter ranged North Korean missiles. The target here is obviously China. This will have consequences.
—
A lot of hype is made today about two hospitals in east-Aleppo that were allegedly bombed:
The second piece, in the Washington Post, originally included this sentence:
Neither hospital was seriously damaged and both are expected soon to function again, …
I pointed that out several times today to “bombing” hypers including to Washington Post writers. Soon after that the piece was “updated” and the sentence changed to:
Both hospitals are expected to be repaired, but they are badly damaged.
Still, according to the piece, only two people were killed in the relevant strikes and three injured. Had the attacks actually targeted the crowded hospitals both would have been destroyed and many more people would be dead. Instead the hospitals seem to have received only collateral damage from strikes on nearby military targets. But pointing that out does not fit the U.S. propaganda line.
Meanwhile the U.S. and its allies continue their daily business of killing people in Syria and elsewhere.
—
I somewhat agree with this election take by Peter Hitchens:
The world’s fixated on Trump. But Hillary could drag us ALL into a catastrophic war
After Monday’s TV show with Clinton and Trump CNN had published a poll claiming that Clinton was the winner of the debate by a wide margin. CNN later released (pdf) the poll data. It turns out (page 9) that only white people and only those above 50 years of age responded to the question. The poll was also heavily skewed towards democratic voters. In other words: it was completely fictional and useless besides giving Clinton additional (false) media momentum.
Scott Adams’ take: Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.
The United States blocked at the United Nations Security Council Russia’s statement on the shelling of its embassy in Damascus, Syria that took place on Monday, the representative of Russia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations told RIA Novosti.
“[The statement] was actually blocked by the US delegation, which tried to add extraneous elements in a standard in such cases text,” the permanent mission statement said.
“The British and Ukrainians clumsily played up to the Americans. It demonstrates their blatant disrespect for the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations,” the statement added.
On October 4, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported the shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus on Monday. One of the mines exploded near a residential complex on the territory of the embassy but none of its staff was hurt.
According to the ministry statement, the embassy was shelled from the Jobar municipality controlled by Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra Front) and Faylaq al-Rahman militant groups.
On October 3, US State Department announced in a press release that Washington was cutting off participation in bilateral channels with Russia on sustaining a ceasefire agreement in Syria, which was reached by the two countries in September.
He declared that he had been shocked by the battle of Aleppo, which he equated with the attack on a humanitarian convoy. He went on to qualify both events as «violations of international law».
However, the attack on the humanitarian convoy was perpetrated on the ground by the «Local Council of Aleppo» against the Syrian Red Crescent, while the battle of Aleppo is being fought by Syria and Russia in application of UNO resolutions calling for the struggle against terrorism. During the Aïd cease-fire, the «Local Council of Aleppo» considered themselves to be linked with organisations listed as terrorist by the UNO, and refused to stipulate the distinction.

Responding to a question from Reuters, Mr. Stoltenberg indicated that NATO would deploy AWACS to improve the Coalition’s view of the sky.
However, Syrian air-space is legally used only by Syria and Russia, and illegally by the Coalition and Israël. The rebel or terrorist armies have no air force. It seems that NATO intends to test the methods of aerial surveillance which still function despite the deployment of the Russian system for disconnecting the Alliance’s command and control.
Translation
Pete Kimberley
We believe in what we are doing… If you are pushed you push back.”
Julian Assange
The mutterings have become furious, and it is clear that the Democratic contender for the White House has again shown how traditional her ploys towards power are going to be. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have again managed to pull the blinds off an episode of some consequence, not least because it casts insight into the inner workings of the already maligned Clinton complex.
For one, it shows that Hillary Clinton will not be averse to muddying the waters of international law she is so happy to proclaim against Russia, China and other contesting bug bears. For another, it does not suggest that a Clinton administration is going to go soft on whistleblowers, or the secrecy complex. The latter is richly ironic given the Secretary’s own slap dash attitude to secrecy protocols when heading the State Department.
The latest WikiLeaks related fuss began a few days ago with the publication on True Pundit that claimed, referring to “State Department Sources” that Clinton had queried the use of a drone to silence the growing nuisance of Assange before the document release that came to be known as Cablegate.[1]
The “early morning November meeting [in 2010] of State’s [the State Department] top brass” has Clinton posing the question: “Can’t we just drone this guy?” This was suggested by True Pundit as being a product of pure frustration, one increased in vain attempts to “cut off Assange’s delivery of the cables” and failing that, forging “a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables.”
Was such a blood thirsty query made in jest, the normalised, crude product of a culture already used to remotely directed extra-judicial assassinations? The report claims otherwise. Initial, dismissive laughter from officials in the room “quickly died off” before the terse manner of the Secretary. “Clinton said that Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, ‘walking around’ freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.”
Such casual talk about eliminating a designated enemy of theUnited States should be of little surprise. Classified emails (yes, those emails) were of particular interest to the FBI in its own criminal investigation into Secretary Clinton’s butter fingered handling of classified information.
A number touched on the approval process for drone strikes, executed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan,Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. Only a few of these were ever rejected by Clinton. Even more dire, many, notably those touching on attacks in Pakistan, found their way onto her personal email account.[2]
The retorts to these allegations have been far from convincing, having much the effect of flogging by damp lettuce. (In a campaign featuring such characters as Clinton and Trump, these could never be any other way.) Clinton’s campaign manager, Robbie Mook, began to see allies of Trump coming out of every cyber nook and cranny.
Donald Trump and his allies are trying to do everything they can to change the debate here right now. Donald Trump failed at the debate, he became increasingly unwound, was tweeting at 3 a.m., making wild accusations of his own against the former Miss Universe and against Hillary Clinton. [3]
For Mook, Trump’s arsenal, supplemented by assistance from his allies (these are not necessarily elaborated with any distinction), had to “find some way to change this up, and they’re trying to do that by doubling down on conspiracy theories.”
Having drawn a web around his own conspiracy theory of compliance, slotting WikiLeaks, by innuendo and suggestion, into a Trump universe, he had to contend with the direct allegations about the drone strike. The lettuce started looking damper than ever. “I’m reticent to comment on anything that the WikiLeaks people have said. They’ve made a lot of accusations in the past.”
Many of these accusations have had the rather brutal semblance of truth to them, not to mention the previous spectacular of the DNC disclosures. These did not reveal so much a conspiracy of theory, but of solid fact in efforts, ruthlessly contrived, to eliminate Bernie Sanders as a threat to the Clinton campaign.
WikiLeaks has been thrilling, horrifying and agitating its audiences with the top hits of disclosure over the ten years it has been in existence. On Tuesday, the organisation celebrated 10 years of an often heady existence, which comprised the release of over ten million classified documents.
It was fitting that this pearler, featuring such a recurring figure of notoriety as Hillary Clinton, should surface at this moment of commemoration. Clinton’s campaign coven have been less than convincing in denying this point. This stands to reason, given that previous denials have tended to vanish before the onslaught of reality.
Like many previous WikiLeaks revelations, it will be up to voters, opinion makers, and the chattering classes to decide what this means. In the case of Tunisia, these assisted the first disruptions that came to be known as the Arab Spring. In the case of the United States, it may harden pre-existing sentiment, the sort fairly immune to any revelations, however grotesque.
A Trump in the White House sends shivers down the spine and turns the stomach of many a voter; but to have a Clinton there, redux of corruption, calamity and mistake, would also shock the sensible and enrage the conscionable.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at SelwynCollege, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University,Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Notes
[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863