Why the Brookings Institution and the Washington establishment love wars

Global Research, October 24, 2016

Washington’s public relations operations for the military contracting firms that surround the US Capitol aren’t by for-profit PR firms, so much as they’re by ‘non-profit’ foundations and think tanks, which present that ‘non-profit’ cover for their sales-promotion campaigns on behalf of the real beneficiaries: owners and top executives of these gigantic ‘defense’ contracting corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

Among the leading propagandists for invading Iraq back in 2002 were Kenn Pollack  and Michael O’Hanlon, both with the Brookings Institution; and both propagandists still are frequently interviewed by American ‘news’ media as being ‘experts’ on international relations, when all they ever really have been is salesmen for US invasions, such as that 2003 invasion, which destroyed Iraq and cost US taxpayers $3 trillion+ or $4.4 trillion – benefiting only the few beneficiaries and their agents, such as the top executives of these ‘non-profits,’ which receive a small portion of the take, as servants usually do.

More recently, Brookings’s Shadi Hamid headlined on 14 September 2013, «The US-Russian Deal on Syria: A Victory for Assad», and the PR-servant there, Dr Hamid, argued that

 «Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is effectively being rewarded for the use of chemical weapons, rather than ‘punished’ as originally planned… Assad and his Russian backers played on Obama’s most evident weakness, exploiting his desire to find a way – any way – out of military action… One might be forgiven for thinking that this was Assad’s plan all along, to use chemical weapons as bait, to agree to inspections after using them, and then to return to conventional killing».

Three weeks after that Brookings ‘expert’ had issued it, the great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann, on 7 October 2014, headlined and offered facts to the exact contrary at his nsnbc news site,

«Top US and Saudi Officials Responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria», and he opened by summarizing his extensive case: «Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry».

Then, on 14 January 2014, the MIT professor Theodore Postal and the former UN weapons-inspector Richard Lloyd performed a detailed analysis of the rocket that had delivered the sarin, and found that it had been fired from territory controlled by the anti-Assad rebels, not by Assad’s forces. Then, yet another great investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, bannered in the London Review of Books, on 17 April 2014, «The Red Line and the Rat Line: Seymour M Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels», and he reported that what had actually stopped Obama from invading Syria was Obama’s embarrassment at British intelligence having discovered that Obama’s case against Assad regarding the gas attack was fake.

Obama suddenly needed a face-saving way to cancel his pre-announced American bombing campaign to bring down the Assad government, since he wouldn’t have even the UK as an ally in it: 

«Obama’s change of mind [weakening his ardor against Assad] had its origins at Porton Down, the [British] defense laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff».

Did Dr Hamid or any other Brookings ‘expert’ ever issue a correction and make note of of their earlier falsehoods, or did they all instead hide this crucially important reality – that not only was the rocket fired from rebel territory but its sarin formula was different from that in Syria’s arsenals, and the actual suppliers were the US, Sauds, Qataris, and Turks – did they not correct their prior war-mongering misrepresentations, but instead hide the fact that the Obama allegations had been exposed to have been frauds and that Obama himself had been one of the planners behind the sarin gas attack? They hid the truth.

Back on 14 June 2013, a Brookings team of Dr Hamid, with Bruce Riedel, Daniel L Byman, Michael Doran, and Tamara Cofman Wittes, had headlined, «Syria, the US, and Arming the Rebels: Assad’s Use of Chemical Weapons and Obama’s Red Line», and they alleged that, although «President Obama has been extremely reluctant to get involved in Syria», «Regime change is the only way to end this conflict», and they applauded the «confirmation that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in Syria», but doubted that Obama would bomb Syria hard enough and often enough. None of them ever subsequently acknowledged that, in fact, they had misstated (been suckered by a US government fraud, if even they had believed it), and that Obama actually drove this hoax harder than his Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised him to.

Continue reading

Tony Cartalucci: U.S. to begin the invasion of Syria. Washington policymakers call for the division, destruction and military occupation of Syria

The hubris and arrogance of these Americans who make policy and manipulate governments as if they are personal property is breathtaking. For more of the same that is also openly published, read
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/09/02-army-defeat-assad-syria-Pollack
An Army to Defeat Assad: How to Turn Syria’s Opposition Into a Real Fighting Force
By Kenneth M. Pollack, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014

By Tony Cartalucci
Near Eastern Outlook,
Posted on Global Research, June 26, 2015

US policymakers sign and date paper calling for the division, destruction, and US occupation of Syria.

Unbeknownst to the general public, their elected politicians do not create the policy that binds their national destiny domestically or within the arena of geopolitics. Instead, corporate-financier funded think tanks do – teams of unelected policymakers which transcend elections, and which produce papers that then become the foundation of legislation rubber stamped by “legislators,” as well as the enumerated talking points repeated ad naseum by the corporate-media.

Such a policy paper has been recently written by the notorious US policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution, titled, “Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country.” [here] The signed and dated open-conspiracy to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America’s shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century.

Pretext ISIS: US Poured Billions Into “Moderates” Who Don’t Exist 

The document openly admits that the US has provided billions in arming and training militants fed into the devastating and increasingly regional conflict. It admits that the US maintains – and should expand – operations in Jordan and NATO-member Turkey to provide even more weapons, cash, and fighters to the already catastrophic conflict.

It then recounts the rise of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), but fails to account from where its money, cash, and weapons came. It should be obvious to readers that if the United States has committed billions in cash, weapons, and training on multiple fronts to alleged “moderates” who for all intents and purposes do not exist on the battlefield, a state-sponsor of greater magnitude would be required to create and sustain ISIS and Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front who Brookings admits dominates the “opposition” uncontested.

Image: By all accounts, including Western think-tanks and corporate-media, ISIS territory includes corridors that lead up to NATO-member Turkey’s borders, as well as US-ally Jordan’s. Both nations host a significant number of US military personnel as well as CIA and special forces contingents. Clearly ISIS is a creation and perpetuation of the West, subsiding on a steady stream of supplies streaming from these two bases of operation.

.

In reality, ISIS’ supply lines lead right into US operational zones in Turkey and Jordan, because it was ISIS and Al Qaeda all along that the West planned to use before the 2011 conflict began, and has based its strategy on ever since – including this most recent leg of the campaign.

The US Invasion of  Syria 

After arming and funding a literal region-wide army of Al Qaeda terrorists, the United States now plans to use the resulting chaos to justify what it has sought since the beginning of the conflict when it became clear the Syrian government was not to capitulate or collapse – the establishment of buffer zones now called “safe zones” by Brookings.

These zones once created, will include US armed forces on the ground, literally occupying seized Syrian territory cleared by proxies including Kurdish groups and bands of Al Qaeda fighters in the north, and foreign terrorist militias operating along the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south. Brookings even admits that many of these zones would be created by extremists, but that “ideological purity” wound “no longer be quite as high of a bar.

Image: The West has only thinly veiled its support for Al Qaeda and ISIS before an impressionable general public. In policy circles, talk of using Al Qaeda to divide and destroy Wall Street’s enemies around the planet is lively and enthusiastic.

.

The US assumes that once this territory is seized and US troops stationed there, the Syrian Arab Army will not dare attack in fear of provoking a direct US military response against Damascus. The Brookings paper states (emphasis added):

The  idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would actin support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the  presence  of  special  forces  as  well. The  approach would  benefit  from  Syria’s open desert  terrain  which  could  allow  creation  of  buffer  zones  that could  be  monitored  for possible  signs  of  enemy  attack  through  a  combination  of  technologies, patrols,  and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.

Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal  of  the  outside  special  forces,  he  would  be  likely  to  lose  his  air power  in ensuing  retaliatory  strikes  by  outside  forces,  depriving  his  military  of  one  of its  few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.

In a single statement, Brookings admits that the government of Syria is not engaged in a war against its own people, but against “ISIL” (ISIS). It is clear that Brookings, politicians, and other strategists across the West are using the threat of ISIS in combination with the threat of direct military intervention as a means of leverage for finally overrunning and seizing Syria entirely.

The Invasion Could Succeed, But Not for US Proxies  

The entire plan is predicated on America’s ability to first take and hold these “zones” and subsequently mesh them into functioning autonomous regions. Similar attempts at US “nation building” are currently on display in the ravaged failed state that used to be North Africa’s nation of Libya, Syria’s neighbor to the southeast, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the list goes on extensively.

The folly of this plan both in attempts to use non-existent credibility and military will to actually implement it, as well as in terms of those foolish enough to place their trust in a nation that has left a swath of global destruction and failed states in its wake stretching from South Vietnam to Libya and back again, can be described only as monumental.

This strategy can almost certainly be used to finally destroy Syria. It cannot however, be used to do any of the things the US will promise in order to get the various players necessary for it to succeed, to cooperate.

Image: US-NATO “liberated” Libya is dominated by Al Qaeda who has more recently rebranded itself as ISIS. Claims by US policymakers that its incremental invasion of Syria will result in anything differently for Syrians is dishonest at best.

.

Almost certainly there are measures Syria, its allies Iran and Hezbollah, as well as Russia, China, and all other nations facing the threats of Western hegemony can take to ensure that US forces will not be able to take and hold Syrian territory or ultimately succeed in what is essentially an invasion in slow motion. Already the US has used their own ISIS hordes as a pretext to operate militarily within Syrian territory, which as predicted, has led to this next stage in incremental invasion.

An increase in non-NATO peacekeeping forces in Syria could ultimately unhinge Western plans altogether. The presence of Iranian, Lebanese, Yemeni, Afghan, and other forces across Syria, particularly bordering “zone” the US attempts to create, may offer the US the prospect of a multinational confrontation it has neither the political will, nor the resources to undertake.

The ability of Syria and its allies to create a sufficient deterrence against US aggression in Syria, while cutting off the logistical lines the US is using to supply ISIS and other terrorist groups operating in Syria and Iraq will ultimately determine Syria’s survival.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/26/us-to-begin-invasion-of-Syria/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-to-begin-the-invasion-of-syria-washington-policymakers-call-for-the-division-destruction-and-military-occupation-of-syria/5458628

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

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

Vice President Joe Biden
Strobe Talbott, President of Brookings Institution

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

HOST
00:00:13
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:00:27
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:02:32
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:24:33
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:24:41
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:25:04
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:25:17
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:26:59
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:28:40
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:28:46
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:28:59
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:30:34
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:30:51
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:36:45
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:37:00
Unidentified Speaker

THANK YOU.

00:37:03
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:37:08
Unidentified Speaker

CHATTER] [CAPTIONS

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

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

00:37:18
Unidentified Speaker

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

00:37:31
Unidentified Speaker

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

Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan – partners in world destruction

A background article on marriage partners Robert Kagan – influential neo-conservative, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute, member of Project for a New American Century – and Victoria Nuland – Assistant Secretary of State and international troublemaker. Through their marriage and partnership, they have created crisis, pain, and death in the world.

No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

Since this article was written, more has come to light about Nuland’s involvement in Ukraine, her war-hyping work in Europe, and now her involvement in an aborted coup in Macedonia. Also, it is no surprise that  Brookings Institution has produced a report advocating lethal military aid to Ukraine [1]. Thank you to Wayne Madsen for this probing article.

From Strategic Culture Foundation
By Wayne Madsen, December 12, 2013______________

During America’s many overseas wars, volunteer women of the United Services Organization (USO), a group designed to boost the morale of U.S. troops in combat zones, served coffee and doughnuts to American soldiers. These women, called “doughnut dollies,” were on the scene in the South Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, has reprised the role of the “Doughnut Dolly” by distributing snacks to anti-government protesters on Maidan square in central Kyiv. Armed with a white plastic shopping bag full of biscuits, Nuland was trying to boost the morale of the protesters in what has become a virtual proxy war between the United States and Russia. Control of Ukraine by NATO has long been a gleam in the eye of American neo-conservative war hawks like Arizona Republican Senator John McCain who followed Nuland by a day among the Maidan protesters.

Following the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, many Americans believed that the age of the neo-cons was over. Neo-cons, nostalgic for the Cold War, put their own imprimatur on the George W. Bush presidency by having it adopt all the principles of neocon policy dogma, most notably a document known as the Project for the New American Century or “PNAC.” With fresh policy guidance from within the neo-con policymaking lairs of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, neocons like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Robert Kagan set about to plunge the United States into senseless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond in a never-ending “global war on terrorism.”

Kagan, although not as well-known as the others, continues to steer America into foreign policy fiascos such as U.S. involvement in the domestic affairs of Ukraine. Kagan has an ace-in-the-hole in stirring up tensions in Ukraine because his wife is none other than Victoria Nuland…

Nuland’s career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the interests of Russia’s ally, Serbia. After helping to lord over the final end of Yugoslavia, Nuland moved to develop U.S. foreign policy for the former Soviet Union. Ukraine landed right in the middle of Nuland’s target scope.

After the Clinton administration, Nuland went on to become Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal foreign policy adviser. Impressed with her anti-Russian and neo-con stance, Cheney recommended Nuland to be the U.S. ambassador to NATO. After the Bush administration, Nuland ensured that the neo-con apparatchiks continued to have a say in the new president’s foreign policy. Nuland was appointed as the special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in a further bid to confront Russia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Nuland as her press spokesman after Philip J. Crowley was forced to resign after he publicly complained about the military prison treatment of Army Private Bradley Manning, arrested and jailed for releasing classified State Department cables to WikiLeaks. Nuland, unlike Crowley, would ensure that neo-con swagger would dominate Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. That swagger became abundantly clear in the CIA’s coup against President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, the U.S.-led overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and U.S. support for uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with “talking points” explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland’s husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.

Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife’s continued presence in a Democratic administration when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign policy.

With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife, inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife’s activities from his perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain’s top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan’s influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.

Kagan’s writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia’s southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.

But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan’s brother, Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan was an “anti-corruption” adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan’s wife is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper “Doughnut Dolly” for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made “Orange Revolution II” than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland. Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America’s “Three Stooges” of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

[1] http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/02/ukraine-independence-russian-aggression

 

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-dolly-victoria-nuland.html

Victoria Nuland: America’s riot-diplomat — Spiegel (English)

By Matthias Gebauer und Holger Stark
February 10, 2015

Victoria Nuland: A clear opinion on what needs to be done in Ukraine

“Fuck the EU” – Victoria Nuland can be very direct. For the US government’s diplomat to negotiate in Ukraine crisis with Europe. At the Munich Security Conference but they drew another irritation.

Victoria Nuland is in Washington in front of an azure video screen of the Brookings Institution [her husband Robert Kagan is a Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution] and wants to say a few basic sentences on Ukraine crisis. “We have to help Ukraine to stop the blood loss,” she says. Even with deadly weapons? Nuland speaks of “defensive” measures and makes only just before stop, to press for the delivery of heavy weapons to the government in Kiev.

Nuland has a very direct way, you can focus on entertaining, but also be undiplomatic -. For a diplomat these are dangerous properties.

The 53-year-old is the European representative of the US government, it is the United States pass through Ukraine crisis and solve the problems with Russian President Vladimir Putin. But in the crisis Nuland has itself become a problem.

Last Friday the American woman of their delegation to the Munich Security Conference gave an internal briefing. She was on the sixth floor of the Hotel Bayerischer Hof. In the room were perhaps two dozen US diplomats and senators. Especially the German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen had spoken publicly that arms sales could act as an accelerant in eastern Ukraine. The Americans were angry.

Nuland is supposed to have given the line: “We can fight against the Europeans, rhetorically fight them,” she said, according to the newspaper “Bild”.

Nuland called the journey of the Chancellor [Merkel] to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the report says, “Merkel Moscow stuff”. The atmosphere heated up, one of the senators spoke evilly of von der Leyen (“defeatist-Minister”), the term “Moscow bullshit” of the Europeans fell probably, too.

The top diplomat Nuland is considered conservative. In the case of an election victory of the Republicans in the coming year she will be considered a potential new Foreign Minister. She is married to Robert Kagan, a conservative thinker. He published last year a text, why America must remain the undisputed leading power in the world.

In Ukraine crisis Nuland is considered hardliner and follower of arms sales – unlike their President Barack Obama she has a clear opinion on what needs to be done.

Stroke of luck and burden for Obama

Nuland was on the US embassies in Moscow and Beijing, as a diplomat in NATO, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Washington. But no country fascinates her as much as Russia. She loves this country, she once said. Nuland speaks Russian fluently. As the “most important memory of her career” is the top diplomat day in August 1991, when it cooperated with 250,000 people in front of the Kremlin in Moscow confessed “and said no to the counter-revolution”. Victoria Nuland has therefore also made the fight against the forces of darkness in the former Russian Empire in the center of her career.

It is therefore a godsend and a burden at the same time for Obama. She made headlines after the Munich Security Conference last year. At that time she flew from Munich to Prague and Cyprus to Kiev, and on the way she called Geoffrey Pyatt, the American ambassador to Ukraine. Nuland renounced specific safety procedures and using her normal mobile phone. So the conversation was unencrypted.

On the evening of February 4, 2014 appeared on YouTube on a recording of four minutes and eleven seconds. The conversation between the two top diplomats gave a rare glimpse into the world of American diplomacy. At the end of the call Nuland said on a proposal by the US government, which was to outmaneuver the hesitant Europeans, and it has made world famous. Shortly before she had spoken with the United Nations, the United Nations should engage in Ukraine and send a messenger to the EU which would not have much to say. “That would be great, I think, to help things move, the UN would move things,” Nuland said and added: “. Fuck the EU”

“Absolutely unacceptable” were the words that the Chancellor was at that time aligned – an unusually sharp reaction. In the days that followed Nuland had to apologize. As a token of apology, she appeared in the next round with a homemade button “. I love the EU”

Now, for the second time Nuland’s derogatory statements have leaked out that were not meant for the public. The Germans were irritated, after all, the American had, at the meeting with German Minister Merkel, praised the initiative to defuse crisis in Ukraine.

The day after the report in the newspaper “Bild” Nuland wanted nothing more to do with the statements then. Rather, she was a fan of the diplomacy initiative of the German Chancellor. “In the public and internally all of us have, myself included, supported the diplomacy,” she said to the US newspaper “Wall Street Journal”, “and we have worked side by side with them.”

Source:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/victoria-nuland-barack-obamas-problem-diplomatin-a-1017614.html

Used under Fair Use Rules.

Victoria Nuland: Amerikas Krawall-Diplomatin — Spiegel (Deutsch)

Von  und Holger Stark, Berlin und Washington
10.02.2015

“Fuck the EU” – Victoria Nuland kann sehr direkt sein. Für die US-Regierung soll die Diplomatin in der Ukraine-Krise mit Europa verhandeln. Bei der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz aber sorgte sie erneut für Irritationen.

Victoria Nuland steht in Washington vor einer azurblauen Videoleinwand der Denkfabrik Brookings Institution [ihr Mann Robert Kagan ist Senior Fellow am Brookings Institution] und will ein paar grundsätzliche Sätze zur Ukraine-Krise sagen. “Wir müssen der Ukraine dabei helfen, den Blutverlust zu stoppen”, fordert sie. Auch mit tödlichen Waffen? Nuland spricht von “defensiven” Maßnahmen und macht nur knapp davor halt, auf die Lieferung von schweren Waffen an die Regierung in Kiew zu drängen.

Nuland hat eine sehr direkte Art. Sie kann scharf, unterhaltsam, aber auch undiplomatisch werden – für eine Diplomatin sind das gefährliche Eigenschaften.

Die 53-Jährige ist die Europa-Beauftragte der amerikanischen Regierung, sie soll die USA durch die Ukraine-Krise führen und die Probleme mit dem russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin lösen. Aber in der Krise ist Nuland selbst zum Problem geworden.

Am vergangenen Freitag gab die Amerikanerin ihrer Delegation bei der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz ein internes Briefing. Sie saß im sechsten Stock des Hotels Bayerischer Hof, im Raum waren vielleicht zwei Dutzend US-Diplomaten und Senatoren. Gerade hatte die deutsche Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen öffentlich davon gesprochen, Waffenlieferungen könnten in der Ostukraine wie ein Brandbeschleuniger wirken. Die Amerikaner waren sauer.

Nuland soll die Linie vorgegeben haben: “Wir können gegen die Europäer kämpfen, rhetorisch gegen sie kämpfen”, sagte sie nach Angaben der “Bild”-Zeitung.

Die Reise der Kanzlerin zum russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin nannte Nuland dem Bericht zufolge “Merkels Moskau-Zeug”. Die Stimmung heizte sich auf, einer der Senatoren soll über von der Leyen (“Defätismus-Ministerin”) gelästert haben, der Begriff “Moskau bullshit” der Europäer fiel wohl auch.

Die Top-Diplomatin Nuland gilt als konservativ. Im Fall eines Wahlsiegs der Republikaner im kommenden Jahr wird sie als mögliche neue Außenministerin gehandelt. Sie ist mit Robert Kagan verheiratet, einem konservativen Vordenker. Er veröffentlichte im vergangenen Jahr einen Text, warum Amerika die unumstrittene Führungsmacht in der Welt bleiben müsse.

In der Ukraine-Krise gilt Nuland als Hardlinerin und Anhängerin von Waffenlieferungen – anders als ihr Präsident Barack Obama hat sie eine klare Meinung, was getan werden muss.

Glücksfall und Hypothek für Obama

Nuland war an den US-Botschaften in Moskau und Peking, als Diplomatin bei der Nato und Sprecherin des Außenministeriums in Washington. Aber kein Land fasziniert sie so wie Russland. Sie liebe dieses Land, hat sie einmal gesagt. Russisch spricht Nuland fließend. Als die “wichtigste Erinnerung ihrer Karriere” bezeichnet die Spitzendiplomatin den Tag im August 1991, als sie zusammen mit 250.000 Menschen vor dem Kreml in Moskau gestanden “und Nein zur Konterrevolution gesagt” habe. Victoria Nuland hat deshalb auch den Kampf gegen die Mächte des Finsteren im einstigen Zarenreich in den Mittelpunkt ihrer Karriere gestellt.

Sie ist damit ein Glücksfall und eine Hypothek zugleich für Obama. Für Schlagzeilen sorgte sie bereits nach der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz des vergangenen Jahres. Damals flog sie von München über Zypern und Prag nach Kiew, und auf dem Weg telefonierte sie mit Geoffrey Pyatt, dem amerikanischen Botschafter in der Ukraine. Nuland verzichtete auf besondere Sicherheitsvorkehrungen und benutzte ihr normales Mobiltelefon. Damit war das Gespräch unverschlüsselt.

Am Abend des 4. Februar 2014 tauchte bei YouTube ein Mitschnitt auf, vier Minuten und elf Sekunden lang. Das Gespräch zwischen den beiden Spitzendiplomaten gab einen seltenen Einblick in die Welt der amerikanischen Diplomatie. Am Ende des Telefonats sprach Nuland einen Vorschlag der US-Regierung an, der die zögerlichen Europäer ausmanövrieren sollte und sie weltberühmt gemacht hat. Kurz zuvor hatte sie mit den Vereinten Nationen gesprochen, die Uno sollte sich in der Ukraine engagieren und einen Gesandten schicken, damit hätte die EU nicht mehr viel zu sagen. “Das wäre großartig, denke ich, um zu helfen, die Dinge zu bewegen, die Uno würde die Dinge vorantreiben”, sagte Nuland und setzte hinzu: “Fuck the EU.”

“Absolut inakzeptabel” seien die Worte, ließ die Kanzlerin damals ausrichten – eine ungewöhnlich scharfe Reaktion. In den Tagen danach musste Nuland sich entschuldigen. Als Zeichen der Abbitte erschien sie bei der nächsten Runde mit einem selbstgemachten Anstecker: “I love the EU.”

Nun sind zum zweiten Mal abfällige Aussagen Nulands durchgesickert, die nicht für die Öffentlichkeit gedacht waren. Die Deutschen zeigten sich irritiert, schließlich hatte die Amerikanerin bei den Treffen mit deutschen Ministern Merkels Initiative zur Deeskalation in der Ukraine-Krise gelobt.

Am Tag nach dem Bericht in der “Bild”-Zeitung wollte Nuland von den Aussagen dann auch nichts mehr wissen. Vielmehr sei sie ein Fan der Diplomatie-Initiative der deutschen Kanzlerin. “In der Öffentlichkeit und intern haben alle von uns, mich eingeschlossen, deren Diplomatie unterstützt”, sagte sie der US-Zeitung “Wall Street Journal”, “und wir haben Seite an Seite mit ihnen gearbeitet.”

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/victoria-nuland-barack-obamas-problem-diplomatin-a-1017614.html

Posted under Fair Use Rules.