Leonid Ivashov: Russia won’t liberate the Europeans again

From Fort Russ

Leonid Ivashov

Pravda.ru, May 20, 2016

Translated from Russian by Tom Winter

World
In recent years, the geopolitical situation and the military-strategic balance of forces in the world is of ever growing concern. It increasingly sounds like the situation of 1939. There’s a smell in the air of a great war.

In the 90s, many representatives of the Russian ruling circles had the impression that the confrontation with the West was finally over. There was even talk about Russia’s accession into NATO, “the end of history” and so on. However, all that was just so long as the elite overseas powers felt that the destructive processes generated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, would be irreversible for Russia. Do not forget that the policy of destroying Russia still continued, but was veiled in the sweet voice of friendship and cooperation.

Vladimir Putin’s 2007 Munich speech was the first signal to the West to debunk the illusion of a weak Russia, the illusion it generated on its own through inertia beginning in 1991. The conflict in South Ossetia a year later came as a shock, after which Western powers took military confrontation “in a serious way.”

Today we see how disturbed the parity of forces in Europe has gotten in connection with the deployment of missile defense systems in Romania and Poland: in a few years Russia will not be able to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.

What should be the asymmetric response of Russia to the new threats and challenges of the modern world? The president of the International Center for Geopolitical Analysis, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Colonel-General, ex-chairman of the “Union of Russian People,” Leonid Ivashov spoke to Pravda.Ru on these subjects.

“You have to understand that in the situation in Europe, that Europe is militarily colonized by the Americans. The Americans have advanced pro-American regimes in the Western European countries and have completely subjugated Eastern Europe. And there, with a base in Eastern Europe there is pressure on Germany, France, as well as, to a lesser extent, Britain. On the other side, the Turks are working on a flank against Europe; they, in concert with the Americans started this process with migrants of Muslim origin. And so Europe today is the victim of US policy, of transnational corporations, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers. That is what is happening in Europe today.

Europe needs the threat of a bogeyman. And here they’ve made one up, Russia. And besides that, they lie so shamelessly, without paying the slightest attention to the balance of power. How could a country threaten NATO, that has several times less military capability? Especially in the western strategic direction. And in size of defense forces, and on the composition of military equipment, we are disadvantaged three or four times over, as well as in overall military equipment. Therefore, we can only be on the defensive, defend ourselves somehow, but as for offensive and striking groups, we have virtually none. But anything else is just false information and propaganda.

Our attempts to create something in the image of the Warsaw Pact have nothing to work on. We have no such countries in Eastern Europe ready to go to close military and military-technical cooperation. The Americans hold them all by the throat. But we have no need for allies like Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. It’s better they will be enemies.

Screen capture from video at site. Text at top: “Only a new Warsaw Pact could stop NATO aggression” Not the view of Ivashov: “We have no need for allies like Poland…”

What we need to do in this area?

“First: strengthen our military power, to bring it to the required level of defense.

“Second: become closer friends with Belarus and, of course, create a single defense space with Belarus. In addition, there must be political and diplomatic work. It is needful to discuss with Europeans what awaits them. We are not going to free them any more from their occupation, with any military support, not from the migrants, nor from the States, nor from the Turks, they shouldn’t expect it. And, of course, work actively with the Serbs, continue to work with the Bulgarians. Throughout the Balkans we should work actively through political, diplomatic, and economic means.

“Third: it is necessary to understand that it’s the Americans who are behind the whole process, the anti-Russian hysteria, and the process of increasing the power of NATO. So we need to create a military group that is capable to work on the territory of United States. The States are actively developing the missile defense system to neutralize our intercontinental ballistic missiles. So you need to create a bundle of high-precision tools. Cruise missiles to be based within reach of the United States. So it becomes possible to neutralize the US missile defense. We need a real threat to the United States, the foundation of all these processes. 

“When Americans feel threatened, as in 1962, then they themselves will be send invitations to the negotiating table and begin to negotiate.”

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/we-need-real-threat-to-united-states.html

Editor: This partially explains the soft coups underway in Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, and the overtures to Cuba. The US government wants to put these countries under its control so there is no possibility of Russian bases or weapons a la NATO.

A weapon that also must be used is simply the truth about all the West has done and is doing — US, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, etc. Name the names, expose the deeds. Showing the Western soldiers who and what they are really fighting for may encourage them to stand down and stop this insanity. It may be that many soldiers want to be warriors for truth, freedom, and goodness.

Hitler: financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, supported by American oil and industry

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
14th May, 2016
 
ru-polit.livejournal (originally from 2009) 

 

More than 70 years ago was the start of the greatest slaughter in history.

The recent resolution of the parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE fully equalizes the role of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany at the outbreak of the Second World War, except that it had the purely pragmatic purpose of extorting money from Russia on the contents of some of the bankrupt economies, intended to demonize Russia as the successor state to the USSR, and to prepare the legal ground for the deprivation of her right to speak out against revision of results of war.
But if we approach the problem of responsibility for the war, then you first need to answer the key question: who helped the Nazis come to power? Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe? The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the “necessary” policies were managed by the financial turmoil, in which, by the way, the world was plunged into.
The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the Central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out a target to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany to control political processes in Central Europe. To implement this strategy it is possible to allocate the following stages:
1st: from 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
2nd: from 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for national socialism;
3rd: from 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
4th: from 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.
In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations. After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.
To solve this problem, debtor countries tried to impose a huge amount of extremely difficult conditions for the payment of reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured Marks. The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, which amounted to 578 (512%), when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.
The Anglo-American ruling circles, in order to take the initiative in their  own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out: “It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”
The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference. Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”, and then JP Morgan recommended that H. Schacht, M. Norman, and the last of the Weimar rulers. In December, 1923, H. Schacht would become Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial circles.
In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with stabilization of the German Mark.
To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan. While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country. By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as the researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for “the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”
The consequences of this were not slow to appear.
This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”. The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent  to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt, and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country will suffer complete bankruptcy.
Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country. The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.
The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.
“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller “Standard Oil”. Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric“) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.
In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”. “General Motors“, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”. Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of  “Volkswagen“. In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest  industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.
American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.
The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.
As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks. It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attache of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.
It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances Hitler was first introduced to Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl (Putzie), a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, rendered him significant financial support, and secured him the acquaintance and communication with senior British figures.
Hitler was prepared in politics, however, while Germany reigned in prosperity, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the crisis.
Since the autumn of 1929 after the collapse of the American stock exchange was triggered by the Federal Reserve, the third stage of the strategy of Anglo-American financial circles started.
The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan decided to stop lending to Germany, inspired by the banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. In September 1931, England abandoned the gold standard, deliberately destroying the international system of payments and completely cutting off the financial oxygen to the Weimar Republic.
But a financial miracle occurred with the Nazi party: in September 1930, as a result of large donations from Thyssen, “I.G. Farben”, Kirdorf’s party got 6.4 million votes, and took second place in the Reichstag, after which generous investments from abroad were activated. The main link between the major German industrialists and foreign financiers became H. Schacht.
On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between the largest English financier M. Norman, A. Hitler, and von Papen, which concluded a secret agreement on the financing of the NSDAP. This meeting was also attended by US policymakers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention. On January 14th, 1933, a meeting between Hitler, Schroder, Papen and Kepler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved. It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on 30th January Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.
The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling circles to the new government was very sympathetic. When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which, naturally, called into question the payment of war debts, neither Britain nor France showed him the claims of the payments. Moreover, after the visit in the United States in May 1933, H. Schacht was placed again as the head of Reichsbank, and after his meeting with the President and the biggest bankers on Wall Street, America  allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion.
In June, during a trip to London and a meeting with M. Norman, Schacht also sought an English loan of $2 billion, and a reduction and then cessation of payments on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got what they could not achieve with the previous government.
In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and at the end of the 30’s, Germany became the main trading partner of England. Schroeder Bank became the main agent of Germany in the UK, and in 1936 his office in New York teamed up with the   Rockefellers to create the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank, which “Times” magazine called the “economic propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome”. As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans, so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.
In August 1934, American “Standard Oil” in Germany acquired 730,000 acres of land and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, Germany  secretly took delivery of the most modern equipment for aircraft factories from the United States, which would begin the production of German planes.
Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney“, “Douglas“, “Curtis Wright“, and American technology was building the “Junkers-87”. In 1941, when the Second world war was raging, American investments in the economy of Germany amounted to $475 million. “Standard Oil” invested – 120 million, “General Motors” – $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and “Ford” — $17.5 million.
The close financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American and Nazi business circles was the background against which, in the 30’s, a policy of appeasement led to world war II.
Today, when the world’s financial elite began to implement the “Great depression — 2” plan, with the subsequent transition to the “new world order”, identifying its key role in the organization of crimes against humanity becomes a priority.
Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical sciences, academician of the Academy of military sciences, and member of  the International Association of historians of world war II

How Obama aims to conquer Crimea

Global Research, May 15, 2016

When US President Barack Obama perpetrated his coup d’état in Ukraine in February 2014, and even had his agent Victoria Nuland select the person who was to rule Ukraine after the coup, it was with the expectation that the new government would renegotiate, and soon end, the Russian lease of the naval base at Sebastopol in Crimea, which wasn’t due to expire until 2042. (Up until 1954, that base had been in Russian territory because Crimea was part of Russia; but, after the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954 arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine, and then the Soviet Union itself broke up in 1991, Russia was keeping its navy there by paying a lease on it from Ukraine.)

However, instead of the US winning control of Crimea as had been planned, the racist-fascist anti-Russian «Right Sector» forces, which Obama’s people had hired to carry out the coup in Kiev under the cover of ‘democratic’ demonstrations against the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych (who had received over 75% of Crimeans’ votes in the Presidential election, prior to being overthrown), terrorized Crimeans during the coup, and this terrorizing of them, simply added insult to their injury. On February 20th, Right Sector forces massacred Crimeans who were escaping from Ukraine’s capital, fleeing the rabid sentiments in Kiev against supporters of Yanukovych. Right Sector caught up with them at the town of Korsun, burned some of their buses, and murdered some of the escaping Crimeans, though most survived — some of them severely injured.

Also, early in March of 2014, shortly prior to Crimea’s referendum on whether to remain within Ukraine, a Crimean who had served in Kiev as a prosecutor in the democratically elected Ukrainian national government that had just been overthrown, and who had likewise escaped from Kiev, was now safely back home in Crimea, and did a Crimean TV interview.

This former prosecutor, Natalya Poklonskaya, took questions from the live TV audience. The interview was posted to YouTube on 12 April 2014, and, as I described it, linking to the YouTube, she proceeded there to «inform her fellow Crimeans what she had seen happen during the overthrow, and why she couldn’t, in good conscience, remain as a Ukrainian official in Kiev, and swear loyalty to the new Ukrainian Government.

She had heard the chants of the Maidan protesters and smelled their piles of burning tires, and seen their marches in Kiev with Nazi symbols and salutes, and she didn’t want to become any part of that. So, she quit and was now unemployed back home in Crimea at the time of this interview».

How Obama Aims to Conquer Crimea

The Obama Administration, in planning for the coup, had polling done throughout Ukraine, and supplemented the sample in Crimea because, naturally, taking control of the Sebastopol naval base was of particular concern to Obama.

USAID and the International Republican Institute of the Republican Party (not the National Democratic Institute, because funding from them might have suggested the White House’s backing) polled 500 Crimeans, during 16-30 May 2013. As I have reported elsewhere, the first stage of preparation for the upcoming coup was already active inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013; and so, this was a very coordinated Obama Administration operation. (Most Washington-based accounts of the overthrow allege that it was ‘democratic’ and started after Yanukovych rejected the EU’s offer on 21 November 2013.)

On 27 December 2014, I compared the results of that Crimean poll versus the results of a poll covering all areas of the former Ukraine, which was taken, also, for the US government, but, to Obama’s inevitable disappointment, neither poll found a US-friendly, Ukraine-friendly, Russia-hostile, Crimea.

Gallup polled 500 Crimeans during May 16-30 in 2013, and found that only 15% considered themselves «Ukrainian». 24% considered themselves «Crimean». But 40% considered themselves «Russian». Even before Obama’s February 2014 coup which overthrew the Ukrainian President whom [nearly] 80% of Crimeans had voted for, the Crimean people overwhelmingly wanted to secede from Ukraine — and, especially now they did, right after the President for whom they had overwhelmingly voted, Viktor Yanukovych, had been overthrown in this extremely bloody coup. Furthermore, in April 2014, Gallup again polled Crimea, and they found that 71.3% of Crimeans viewed as «Mostly positive» the role of Russia there, and 4.0% viewed it as «Mostly negative»; by contrast, only 2.8% viewed the role of the United States there as «Mostly positive,» and a whopping 76.2% viewed it as «Mostly negative».

During the intervening year, Crimeans’ favorability toward America had plunged down to 2.8%, from its year-earlier 6%. Clearly, what Obama had done in Ukraine (his violent coup in Kiev) had antagonized the Crimeans. And, as if that weren’t enough, the 2014 poll provided yet more evidence: «The 500 people that were sampled in Crimea were asked [and this is crucial] ‘Please tell me if you agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status [whether to rejoin Russia] reflect the views of most people here.’ 82.8% said ‘Agree.’ 6.7% said ‘Disagree.’»

In the hearts of the local residents, Crimea was still Russian territory, after an involuntary hiatus of 60 years; and so the Russian Government accepted them back again, into Russia – this was not as Corey Flintoff droned, «Russia’s seizure of Crimea». It was Russia’s protection of them from the invasion of Ukraine by the United States in a bloody coup.

On 20 March 2015, even Kenneth Rapoza at the anti-Russian magazine Forbes, headlined«One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev», and he concluded that, «Despite huge efforts on the part of Kiev, Brussels, Washington and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the bulk of humanity living on the Black Sea peninsula believe the referendum to secede from Ukraine was legit. At some point, the West will have to recognize Crimea’s right to self-rule».

However, Barack Obama refuses to accept this. After all, if he were to accept it, then he would have to terminate the anti-Russia economic sanctions he initiated on the basis of Russia’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea, and he would have to acknowledge that the massive US-led military buildup of NATO forces on Russia’s borders in order to protect against ‘Russia’s aggression’ needs to stop and, indeed, be withdrawn. But Obama doesn’t accept any of this; to do that would negate the whole purpose of his coup, and even his anti-Russian policy, including, perhaps, his refusal to cooperate with Russian forces that are trying to stamp out jihadist groups in Syria.

On 6 February 2016, I headlined «US Now Overtly at War Against Russia» and reported that both US ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg had announced the US was initiating a quadrupling of US troops and weaponry on Russia’s northwestern borders.

On 4 May 2016, Dmitriy Sedov headlined at Strategic Culture, «NATO to Form Allied Fleet in the Black Sea: Plans Fraught with Great Risks» and he opened: «Finally, it has become clear what the world has been set to expect from the NATO summit to be held in Warsaw on July 8-9. Summing things up, it is clear that the Alliance is moving to the east. It plans to create a Black Sea «allied fleet». It should be done quickly – the standing force should be formed by July».

Sedov closed by saying that Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko «is impatiently waiting for the July NATO summit. The event can ultimately do away with whatever is left of ‘détente’, ‘reset’ etc. and bring the world back to the days of uncompromised mutual assured destruction».

There is a backstory to that, and, naturally, it goes back to Barack Obama:

As I have previously explained, US Secretary of State John Kerry had told Poroshenko, on 12 May 2015, to stop saying that Ukraine would restart its war against the separatist Donbass region and would invade Crimea and retake that too; but, Kerry’s subordinate, Hillary Clinton’s friend Victoria Nuland, told Poroshenko to ignore her boss on that, and then US President Obama sided with Nuland and sidelined Kerry on Ukraine policy by making clear that he thought Poroshenko was right to insist upon retaking Crimea and re-invading Donbass.

In other words, the Minsk peace process for Ukraine, that had been initiated by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, was grudgingly accepted by Obama but he really had no intention of its being anything more than a pause in the war, after which NATO itself would become engaged in facing-down Russia over its ‘aggressive invasion’ and ‘seizure’ of Crimea.

Game’s on for World War III, is Obama’s message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. At some point, either the American side or the Russian-NATO-EU side will have to back down on the Crimea matter, or else the bombs will be release against the other. Kerry has been trying negotiation, but his real enemy is his own boss.

There is every indication that, if Hillary Clinton, a super-hawk against Russia, becomes the next US President, then the policies that Obama has been implementing will be carried out. 2016 could thus turn out to be a very fateful election in the US, and not only for the US but for the entire world.


Regime change in the U.S.– Proposal from a concerned citizen

Global Research, May 15, 2016
Global Research 2 October 2002

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article from our archives was first published in October 2002, six months prior to the March 2003 US led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

As we recall, the justification to wage war on Iraq was the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMD). At the time, the US and its indefectible British ally were calling for regime change in Iraq. 

The author of this article is calling for an entirely different course of action which consists in implementing regime change in the US and the establishment of a sanctions regime against the US.

This text written in 2002 predicts with foresight what is happening today: the contours of a global military agenda which seeks to enforce US hegemony Worldwide.

While the proposal contained in this article may sound total unrealistic under present circumstances, it should nonetheless be addressed  by those committed to reversing the tide of global warfare, destruction and economic destabilization.  

It is of particular relevance in relation to the CIA covert support of terrorists in the Middle East, the soft coup in Brazil against president Dilma Rousseff, also supported by US intelligence, not to mention the installation of a Ne0-Nazi regime in Ukraine.

The author proposes sanctions against Washington rather than sanctions against Washington’s target countries.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. The real “Axis of Evil” is the US-NATO war machine, which must be dismantled.

Michel Chossudovsky, GR Editor, May 15, 2016. 

*       *      *

What the United Nations Must Do

Rather than adopting the suggested regime change in Iraq through military force, the United Nations must instead consider an entirely different course of action. This new course is based upon the facts alone, rather than political pressure. A regime change is indeed necessary, but not in Iraq. The primary regime which needs to be changed, is the one found in Washington DC.

The greatest tyrant and true threat to world peace who needs to be ousted, is George W. Bush. The facts which clearly show the need for such a resolution against the U.S. are self evident…they demonstrate a “clear and present danger” to the world community. America is clearly a nation which aspires to global domination, through the use of the most expensive and high tech military the world has ever known. 

In demonstration of the above assertions, let us be very clear about America’s” 300+ billion dollar a year expense, for weapons of mass destruction. These include;

1) Atomic and hydrogen bombs.

2) The “Star Wars” weaponry of space satellites, and laser devices.

3) A host of biological weapons including anthrax, which it has used on its own citizenry and manufactured in its own laboratories.

4) Guided missile cruisers, Stealth bombers and aircraft carriers conveying the most advanced air-based offensives, ever to be used in the history of mankind.

5) Depleted uranium munitions, used repeatedly upon countries such as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, causing birth defects and lingering mutilation of civilian populations.

6) The use of spies, covert CIA operatives and other agents, as well as a barrage of propaganda, which seeks to weaken, overthrow and exploit the sovereign nations of the world, primarily for the sake of installing pro-U.S.-corporate puppets who will do Washington’s bidding. (The fact that it has staged countless internal rebellions and coups within dozens of countries in the last five decades, is well documented and known. The U.S. constantly interferes with, and attempts to coerce, the mandates of foreign governments for the sake of its own special interests, and in the name of “democracy”. The real reason for this behavior is, of course, unfair economic advantage and bottomless greed.)

7) Nerve gas, tear gas, blistering agents, neurotoxins and poisonous compounds of all kinds.

8) “Smart” bombs”, “Bunker Buster” bombs, “Daisy Cutter” bombs, mines and laser or satellite guided munitions.

9) Teams of special forces troops, whose missions are designed for assassination, covert mass-murder and maximized destruction.

The United States possesses, and has openly discussed using, such weapons of mass destruction upon a great number of  countries. Among these nations are those in George Bush’s so-called “axis of evil” list, as well as many others which it says, “harbor terrorists”.

The so-called “War on Terror” [as formulated in 2001] targets Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Colombia, Nicaragua and many others. Upon these nations,  the U.S. has repeatedly issued a series of very aggressive and threatening statements to the effect of; “You are either with us or against us”, implying dire consequences of economic, diplomatic and military measures in the case of non-compliance.

The US has openly discussed the possibility of a “first strike” use of conventional nuclear warheads, and “tactical nukes” on the battlefield. Washington’s  military agenda consists in “winning  no matter what the cost of truth or human lives”, as a surrogate for sane foreign relations, has earned the wrath of the world.

U.S. belligerency has been a major contributor to international hostilities, instability, war and the creation of reactionary terrorist groups, as well as the oppression of peoples worldwide. Its irrational posture threatens to catapult the world into another, and probably final, world war.

The United States has repeatedly shown its willingness to target civilian populations with weapons of mass destruction, especially via the carpet-bombing of cities and infrastructures. It is the only nation to have ever used nuclear devices in war, and upon civilian targets.

Among the structures bombed have been desalinization plants, water treatment facilities, police stations, electrical substations and generators, radar and communications stations, hospitals, highway, railway and other transportation facilities, factories for the manufacture of metal, plastic and wood products, and numerous other civilian centers.

Countless examples of this behavior have been witnessed in both Iraq [since the 1991 Gulf War under the US-UK no-fly zone] and Afghanistan. The result has been millions of Iraqi and Afghan children dying of unnecessary diseases and malnutrition, due to a severe lack of food and safe drinking water. U.S. allies such as Israel, (whose military it literally makes possible) have also exhibited such behavior, as has Great Britain, through constant urging toward mindless, mutually accomplished war frenzies.

A primary export of the United States is weaponry of mass destruction, including so-called “conventional” weapons such as guided missile cruisers, bombers, small arms, mortars, rockets, tactical advisors, self guided missiles, attack helicopters, high tech surveillance and imaging systems, tanks, explosives and various other tools design primarily for the sake of destroying human life.

Added to this list of exports are multi-lingual propaganda, biological agents, tear and nerve gas, atomic weapons and their constituents, as well as technical advice regarding their construction, maintenance and use. The U.S. has frequently urged countries to use these weapons against each other so long as it benefitted its political interests, while simultaneously criticizing those who use them without American sanction.

Permanent State of War

The U.S. has repeatedly told its own citizenry to expect involvement in what amounts to a  Permanent State of War, due to the “War on Terror”. A large and increasing number of foreign nationals are being held in American prisons unlawfully, often without charges, legal due process or access to legal counsel. These persons are often subjected to psychological and physical torture due to their nationality or religious beliefs. Its’ Afghan prisoners of war in Cuba are treated without dignity, in violation of the Geneva Convention. At the same time, the U.S. has insisted that its military personnel must be held exempt from war crimes charges by the international community, regardless of their actions.

The United States repeatedly defies the resolutions and authority of the United Nations, making it clear that it views this body as merely a tool which can be occasionally used to achieve its special interests, rather than those of humanity in general.

America has also made it quite clear that if its demands are not met by the international community/United Nations, that it will act on its own regardless of their wishes, and in whatever manner it sees fit. This includes pre-emptive military invasion of any country which dares to oppose its policies, and for whatever flimsy, baseless justification it gives to the world as an excuse for such actions.

The international community must seriously ask itself, “Who’s next?” in this series of American invasions of sovereign lands. “Who will die next…by the thousands, tens of thousands or millions…” at the bloody hands of American imperialism?

For these reasons and others, it is hereby proposed that:

A United Nations resolution be created for the purpose of disarming and otherwise rendering harmless, the major threat to world peace which the United States has become. Toward this end the necessity of ousting its current dictator, George W. Bush, and the legislative bodies of that government which currently parrot him without serious debate, is self evident.

The functional means necessary to achieve this goal are hereby suggested. They include;

1) Economic sanctions and trade tariffs, aimed at undermining the U.S. economy, thereby depriving its monstrous military apparatus of the necessary life blood to function.

2) The insistence of a complete withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from wherever they may be stationed around the world. This includes U.S. occupation forces already in conquered countries, (such as Afghanistan).

3) The elimination of world petroleum exports to the United States, as well as the necessary raw materials which make it’s industrial-military apparatus possible.

4) The withdrawal of foreign investment in U.S. companies, and their various enterprises. This includes the canceling of existing contracts with U.S. companies, especially those involved with the extraction of petroleum, the mining of precious metals, deforestation, sweat shop industries of clothing, plastics, electronics and other manufacture, as well as other vital resources from lands not within their territorial domain.

5) That U.S. military and civil leaders, especially George W. Bush and his entire cabinet, be brought to justice for their heinous participations in war crimes and crimes against humanity the world over, by the international courts. World leaders must understand that no one country can both make the rules and break them, when it comes to international justice.

6) The use of joint military force if necessary, to curb, restrict and otherwise prevent the American advance toward world domination. America must be deprived of what it most desires, which are the resources of others to fuel an extravagant lifestyle, and the support of bribed or bullied foreign leaders to accomplish a singularly selfish, unilateral agenda.

In effect, the United States must feel the full pressure of the  ”community of nations”,  as it expresses its refusal of US imperialism around the globe.

The United States must also understand that its anti-humanitarian, corporate-minded, industrial-military schemes for global dominance are nothing short of those employed by Hitler, and other fascist dictators and governments, throughout the course of history. [Constantly declaring war and occupying one country after the next demonstrates this.]

The international community, and indeed the peoples of the entire world, find this attitude and behavior of the US administration unacceptable. They will no longer be coerced or made to feel insecure in their own places of residence and worship, at the behest of Washington’s whims.

Salafist shades of gray: US uses veto to protect proxies in Syria

From Fort Russ

By Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
12th May, 2016
On Tuesday, 10th May 2016, the UN held a vote on the inclusion of the extremist groups Ahrar Al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam on the list of “terrorist” groups.The United States, France, UK, and Ukraine all voted against this resolution. This vote was the result of a proposal made by Russia in April, where even then the US implied that it would opt to block such a move in the future.
As was explained in this Fort Russ article, Russia finds itself caught in an Atlanticist web, where one week Group X are ‘terrorists’, and 7 days later they magically become “moderate”. The US has the ability to do this of course because of their imposing influence not only at the UN, but also in the world of Non Governmental Organisations. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, for example, provides Pentagon-funded agencies like Reuters with falsified information, which then travels along the NGO spider’s web, ending in such information being the top search result in Google or Yahoo. This method of information spin relies on idle minds and habitual behaviour, something that the State Department’s own Vice News feasts on (Hipsters).
Assuming that the majority of people obtain their knowledge from the US-controlled Wikipedia, it can be said that it is common knowledge that Jahbat Al-Nusra are “Al Qaeda in Syria”, and that they represent the Salafist ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
It can also be said that Ahrar Al-Sham, besides being Qatar’s finger in the Syrian pie, are also widely known to be loyal to the Salafist ideology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham
And finally, it can also be presumed that Jaish Al-Islam are widely known to be loyal to the Salafist ideology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaysh_al-Islam
So despite all 3 groups sharing the same ideology, only 1 has been placed on the UN list of terrorist organisations.
Taking into account what is known about the events on the ground in Syria, Al-Nusra have been able to capitalise on Russia’s postponement of the assault on Aleppo. In order to appease not only the Higher Negotiations Committee, but  John Kerry also, Russia moved some toys out of Syria, and seemingly thought that the US, in return, would offer to rein-in the groups they have influence over in Aleppo.
Unfortunately, Putin was left feeling disappointed at the US’ semantic games, and now looks like a villain in the eyes of Iran and the Syrian Army, who are now lacking air support when they need it the most.
Robert Fisk’s excellent article entitled “After splitting with Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra is being presented to the West as a moderate force. It’s nothing of the sorthighlights that the West uses an non-existent group (Cameron’s 70,000 for example)  that are earmarked as ‘moderates’ who can behave as a Trojan Horse in the Levant. This role was initially played by “ISIS”, but Russia quickly removed them from the main equation, and now Al-Nusra are Obama’s go-to guys. They have inherited a magic shield that protects them from Russian KAB-500Kr and OFAB-500 bombs. Maybe soon they will give them MANPADs too – a throwback to the 80’s…
The US’ plan in Syria hinges now on Al Qaeda, who must somehow arrange themselves in Aleppo in a way where Samantha Power, US’ permanent representative at the UN, can help them to dissimulate their true objective – to create a Salafist Emirate in Syria.
On a separate note – Ukraine vetoing the resolution is a statement in itself, and really confirms that Kiev is acting as an auxiliary ammo depot for Takfiri Jihadists. US Gladio-B outposts outside Syria provide the IMF with fresh blood and Angela Merkel with more banana republics inside the now frail EU.
Russia can only counter this hybrid encircling by attacking the head of the snake – Jabhat Al-Nusra – and by offering the Syrian Army and the Iranian Al-Sabereen units the air support they need to liberate Aleppo district by district. This war still has a long way to go…

Ukrainian general talks about political realities and power in Ukraine, exposes American control — March 2014

The video is id’d as Simferopol on March 7, 2014

The speaker is identified by a commenter as Yan Kazemirovich

From Fort Russ

Translated by Inessa Sinchougova for Fort Russ
12th May, 2016
Ukrainian General blows the lid on international Zionists that are occupying Ukraine, funded by the CIA.
He explains that he has no ill feelings towards everyday people of Jewish origin, as they too are hostage to this international government.
The General mentions:
Mr Yatsenuk – Former Prime Minister and First Deputy of Masonic Lodge of Ukraine
Mr Pinchuk – Head of Masonic Lodge in Ukraine (the son in law of former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma)
Mr Leonid Kravchuk was the first president of independent Ukraine.
Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, and Firtash are Ukrainian oligarchs that are towing the interests of the US State Department and international Zionists in Ukraine.

 

OSCE observers transport ammo to the UAF

UAF = Ukrainian Armed Forces = Kiev regime forces

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
10th May, 2016
 
Donetsk People’s Republic’s intelligence has discovered evidence that certain representatives of the OSCE observation mission are using company vehicles to transport ammunition to the positions of Ukrainian Army, according to the Deputy Commander of the operational command of the DPR Eduard Basurin.
“We ask the SMM OSCE to conduct an investigation into the violation by individual observers of the Charter of the international organization. In particular, representatives of the OSCE mission assisted in the transport, using official cars, of ammunition to the position of units of the 1st battalion of the 54th UAF brigade,” said the Deputy commander. Relevant information was obtained from reliable sources in the specified 54th brigade, he said.
“In addition, recently these same observers carried three 7.62 mm ammo boxes to the positions of the 1st battalion of the 54 brigade.”

LPR: UAF has deployed ISIS mercenaries; Aidar denied OSCE access for investigation

From Fort Russ

May 13, 2016 –
Translated by J. Arnoldski
The Ukrainian punitive command has deployed mercenary brigades, including former divisions of the terrorist organization “Islamic State” (ISIS, banned in Russia) to the front line in the LPR. This statement by the official representative of the LPR’s People’s Militia, Major Andrey Marochko, has been reported by Novorossiya Information Agency’s correspondent from today’s briefing in Lugansk. 
The LPR defense ministry’s representative stated: “The Ukrainian side continues to resort to foreign mercenaries. In the village of Olkhovaya of the Stanichno-Lugansky district, mercenary units have arrived, the majority of which consist of Arabs and dark-skinned people numbering 50 persons. These mercenaries presumably arrived as part of a volunteer contingent who formerly were in the ranks of the terrorist grouping known as the Islamic State.”
According to Marochko, mercenaries are traditionally housed in the “liberated” homes of local residents.
“The international observatory mission of the OSCE has attempted to gain access to this district of the village, but representatives of the nationalist Aidar battalion have not allowed international observers in, arguing that they are carrying out a special operation.” 

Kiev City Council announces termination of relations with Moscow

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
13th May, 2016
 
 
 
The deputies of the Kiev city council sent a letter  to the Russian government on the termination of bilateral agreements on the “twinning relationship” between the Ukrainian capital and Moscow. The corresponding letter was posted on the Facebook page of the Deputy mayor of Kiev and Secretary of Kiev city council – Volodymyr Prokopiv.
Earlier, the deputies of the Kiev city council supported the initiative for the termination of bilateral agreements on the “twinning relationship” between the Ukrainian capital and a number of Russian cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
“In accordance with the decision of the Kiev city Council, Kiev unilaterally severs all previously signed agreements about twinning, partnerships, and cooperation with Moscow,” said the letter of the city council sent to the government of the Russia.
Earlier, the deputies of the “Svoboda” nationalist party in the Kiev city council proposed to terminate the bilateral agreement on “sister-city relationships” between the Ukrainian capital and a number of Russian cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Later, the authorities of the Ukrainian city of Khmelnytskyi decided to terminate the partnership with Tver and Ivanovo, and notified the city Duma of the Russian twin-cities. However, press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov expressed deep regret at the position of Kiev on the rupture of relations with Russian sister cities.

Remembering World War II, the defeat of Nazism: Toronto officials try to thwart Victory Day celebration

Global Research, May 12, 2016

Seventy one years ago the most violent military conflict of the 20th century, the Second World War ended in victory over Nazi Germany. Unprecedented levels of destruction, barbarism, industrial scale ethnic cleansing, and a myriad of other atrocities took millions of innocent lives. The Soviet Union paid the most terrible price with over 20 million civilian and military personnel dead.

The genocidal plans of the Nazi leaders and their collaborators scarred the lives of millions more. Literary every family in what is now the former Soviet Union lost loved ones, or had been impacted by the war. That is the reason why the Victory Day celebration is one of the most important days in the calendar for nearly all immigrant communities from the former Soviet Union. Victory Day is a very personal day for tens of thousands of residents of Toronto, war veterans, their families. It is a celebration and remembrance of sacrifice and heroism.

Last year’s Victory Day event organized by grassroots volunteer veterans organization took place at Earl Bales park in the north end of Toronto. Several thousand people, many holding portraits of their parents and grandparents, marched through the park to underscore the unity of all people from different generations, waves of immigration, countries of origin, religions and political backgrounds in their respect and gratitude for the sacrifice of the veterans.

This year the Victory Day celebration might not have happened at all – if bureaucrats in the City of Toronto had their way. Officials at City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation did everything in their power to exclude organizers from Earl Bales Park, to prevent the community from honouring the sacrifice of their loved ones.

A dizzying array of unreasonable, ever-changing restrictions, and obstacles had been placed in order to discourage the organizers and the community. Firstly, the bureaucrats denied the request to have a small parade of veterans and family members in one of the park’s roadways. Next they’ve tried to shuffle the event as far away from people’s eyes into a remote parking lot, that looks more like construction site than a place where veterans should be honoured. They placed restrictions on the use of washrooms and other park facilities, tried to deny space for an art exhibition, and demanded that a garbage collection company be contracted one day before deadline. City of Toronto officials forced the organizers to rent, at their expense, the amphitheatre in the park regardless that organizers had no use for it. The amphitheatre is not wheelchair accessible and could not possibly be used by veterans, many of who are wheelchair bound and are approaching their centenary.

Next was the demand to erect a stage, also not needed. Building permits, crowd control plans, etc. Park officials did everything in their power to drown organizers in paperwork in order to satisfy constantly changing demands. Catering, signs, banners, all of the literature to be distributed or sold at the event had to be pre-approved by Parks officials. Even though the event is not political in nature City bureaucrats had effectively barred political organizations sympathetic to the cause from participating in the event. Organizers worked ceaselessly to satisfy the ever-changing whims of the bureaucrats. It took a month of negotiations, scores of meetings and the involvement of City Councillor James Pasternak for the City bureaucrats to finally allow veterans, but not members of general public, to march through the Park.

Yet as soon as one set of obstacles would be overcome, the bureaucrats would slap another set of restrictions turning the process into a never-ending nightmare with an ever-more uncertain outcome. On the day of signing the permit,  a little more than a day before the event, Lindsay Peterson a manager for Parks North York District had demanded from organizers to provide porta-potties, contrary to previous agreement negotiated with the help of Ward 20 city councillor James Pasternak. Surely she was aware that such a requirement would be impossible to satisfy in few remaining hours before her office closes for the weekend. When that had failed she had questioned the authority of representative to sign for the permit. Mrs. Peterson demanded, that the president of organization, a 88 year old veteran who doesn’t speak English, be summoned into her office to sign for the permit. It’s a miracle and testament to perseverance of volunteers at veterans group were finally issued a permit for the event.

The treatment the organizers received underscores the level of hostility of Toronto City Hall and other level of Canadian Government towards Russian and other communities from the former Soviet Union. The ideologically based harassment, bordering on ethnic discrimination is something the community had to deal with for years. Yet the treatment organizers, who wished nothing more but to provide the community with opportunity to honour the sacrifices of their relatives, veterans and loved ones, got from City officials this year is definitely a new low by any standards. Not only does this macabre show exposes the strength of  in City’s own Human Rights and Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy, but also showcases true value of Mayor John Tory’s commitment to running an inclusive city administration, open to all the communities and their concerns.

Konstantin Goulich – Activist, Community Organizer