EU

Foreign Minister Lavrov speaks to UN Security Council on Ukraine, September 23, 2026

Posted by

0

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the UN Security Council on Ukraine, New York,
September 23, 2026:

I would like to begin with expressing gratitude to our Western colleagues, primarily European ones. Let me explain.

If not for them, the situation in Ukraine would have remained in limbo, and the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya would have been deprived of the right to choose.

Back in 2004, when Ukraine was forced to hold the illegal third round of presidential elections, Brussels decided to fully clarify the matter, demanding that Ukrainians make a choice between Russia and Europe. In 2013, when public unrest was orchestrated in Kiev to demand the immediate signing of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, Brussels insisted on its approach to the matter, completely disregarding its obligations under the CIS Treaty on a Free Trade Area. Assuming leadership of the February 2014 negotiations between the legitimate president and the opposition, Europeans secured a crisis settlement agreement, under which Viktor Yanukovych accepted all their conditions, including the creation of a national unity government that was to prepare an early presidential election provided that both the authorities and the opposition immediately renounce any violence. That document was signed on February 21, 2014, under the official guarantees of Germany (Frank-Walter Steinmeier), Poland (Radoslaw Sikorski) and France (Laurent Fabius). However, on the night of February 22, 2014, the opposition trampled on these guarantees and its own commitments, seizing government buildings and announcing the establishment of not a “national unity government” but a “government of victors.” As they say, feel the difference.

As for the guarantors of the agreement, which the putschists trampled down, Paris stated with a straight face as soon as February 23, 2014, that the nascent democratic transition meets the aspirations of the Ukrainian people.

Britain could not stand idly by, of course. Foreign Secretary William Hague stated on February 22, 2014: “Events in the last 24 hours show the will of Ukrainians to move towards a different future.” He said about Yanukovych on February 24, 2014, that “his authority is no longer widely accepted in Ukraine as a legitimate President.”

A bit later, on March 1, 2014, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel joined in: “We must provide all-round assistance to the striving of the Ukrainian people for freedom and democracy.”

The new authorities in Kiev, emboldened by the free hand granted by the West, immediately declared the goal of terminating the status of the Russian language, and responded to the protests of people in Crimea and Donbass against the bloody coup by denouncing them as terrorists and sending groups of armed fighters and regular army units, including artillery and aviation, against them. This resulted in the Crimean referendum on its independence from the openly Nazi regime that seized power in Kiev, and on its reunification with Russia.

If Europeans had not been cheating but would have forced the opposition to honour the agreement signed in February 2014 under the guarantees of Berlin, Paris and Warsaw, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity within the 1991 borders, which Zelensky and his Western patrons dream of. But Europeans could not suppress their inherent instinct to lie and to achieve their goals by criminal means.

A year later, the Minsk Agreements, which Berlin and Paris strongly requested, were signed. They were signed on February 12, 2015, and on February 17, 2015, they were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. It should be noted that under Article 25 of the UN Charter, member states “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

However, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko categorically refused to do that, and his patrons in Berlin and Paris did not even try to reason with him. When Emmanuel Macron assumed office in France, there was a surge in traditional French activity. On December 19, 2019, the Normandy Four (Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine) held a summit in Paris, where the Kiev regime was represented by Vladimir Zelensky, who had come to power under the high-sounding slogans of establishing peace and good-neighbourliness with Russia and putting an end to attacks on the Russian language. They adopted a declaration that reaffirmed the need to ensure strict compliance with the Minsk Agreements, including to enshrine the special status of certain Donbass areas in the Constitution of Ukraine. This status did not imply anything extraordinary – only the right to use the Russian language and establish local self-governments.

Had the 2015 Minsk Agreements, which were reaffirmed in Paris in 2019 when Zelensky was president, were fulfilled in accordance with the requirements of the UN Security Council, Ukraine would have remained within the 1991 borders, with the exception of Crimea, of course, and everyone is fully aware of this. However, Europe did not allow this again. As Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko admitted after leaving office, they never planned to implement the Minsk Agreements they signed. They only needed time to flood Ukraine with weapons. A very candid confession. All those meetings, like the one in Paris, were only needed to feign intense diplomatic activity, using it as a cover for building up the anti-Russia campaign.

In December 2021, NATO and the Biden administration arrogantly rejected Russia’s proposals to reach an agreement based on mutual respect for the security interests of Russia, the countries of Europe and North America. From a practical standpoint, preparations were underway to have Kiev take over Donbass territories which were outside of its control. In February 2022, to prevent the Western scenario from materialising, we were forced to launch the special military operation. Just one week into it, the Ukrainians requested talks. We agreed. After several rounds of negotiations in Belarus and Istanbul, Ukraine came forward by proposing the key settlement principles, and our negotiators accepted them. The main provisions provided for asserting Ukraine’s neutrality, recognising the reality on the ground, while also setting forth collective security guarantees as a reliable safeguard for preventing any future military escalation, provocations or aggressive undertakings. The Ukrainian and Russian delegations initialled the document, but everyone knows how the events unfolded from that point. The then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, prevented the Ukrainians from entering into a legally binding agreement based on the text as suggested and initialled by Kiev. Instead, he urged Ukraine to fight back. Europe de facto agreed with London’s position.

Had this initialled agreement been executed as a treaty and honoured, Ukraine would have remained within its 1991 borders, minus Crimea and a part of Donbass.

After that, Europe continued “to contribute to peace efforts” following the August 2025 summit meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump in Alaska. At the summit, the President of Russia accepted Washington’s proposals with their compromises, as he has said many times. The leaders of Russia and the United States made it clear during their joint press conference in Anchorage that an agreement of principle had been reached, and President of the United States Donald Trump made the same point in his statements the following days.

Unnerved by these developments, Europe rushed to persuade the President of the United States to back out of his own initiative, just like Boris Johnson forced Ukrainians to withdraw their own proposals in Istanbul. A European squadron was instantly dispatched to Washington with a mission to do everything to make sure that any further efforts to fulfil the Anchorage agreements stalled. As a result, during the Group of Seven Summit in Evian and the NATO Summit in Ankara in June 2026, Emmanuel Macron and other Western leaders were boasting about burying Anchorage, while alleging that the United States was firm in its commitment to siding with Ukraine.

When Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner once again visited Moscow recently, they reaffirmed Washington’s interest in facilitating a settlement for Ukraine. Just as President of the United States Donald Trump said after the Anchorage meeting in August 2025, everyone agrees that what was needed was not some kind of a ceasefire deal, but a lasting peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine to end the war for good.

Russia is ready to hold talks to reach this kind of a just and sustainable peace, just as President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions. He set forth the objectives that must be reached to achieve this goal with abundant clarity in his program-setting speech in June 2024. That said, considering our negative experience, we will not make any pauses in the special military operation during talks, regardless of their format. However, this is what Europe is after, with the same straightforward goal of getting a respite and replenishing the Kiev regime’s depleted war arsenals. Having found itself in this dire situation, it has switched to what amounts to outright terrorism.

Apart from guaranteeing Russia’s security interests, the special military operation’s objectives include ensuring that all the rights of Russian and Russian speakers are fully respected not only in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, but also on the territory of Ukraine where there are still laws in force as encouraged by the West to fully cancel the Russian language in all spheres, including education, mass media, culture and in everyday life, while also outlawing the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Having started in 2017, the effort to adopt these laws by far pre-dates the special military operation. But Europe and NATO stayed silent.

At the same time, there was a legislative effort to encourage Nazi ideology and practices. It culminated with Vladimir Zelensky and other regime officials taking a knee to honour the remains of Hitler’s accomplices. These remains received what amounted to royal honours when they were transferred from Europe to be reburied in Kiev. Moreover, they plan to create what they call a Pantheon of Ukrainian Heroes based on these devilish tombs on the territory of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which is a sacred site for all Orthodox believers. It is saddening that our former allies with whom we fought against Hitler and Nazism have been condoning these undertakings.

The West, and above all – the European Union, is ever ready to speak about human rights at every conceivable opportunity. Yet in relation to the Kiev regime, one never hears that phrase. Russia insists on the strict observance of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which requires all states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. We understand that with regard to sex (gender), the Kiev regime looks more to Europe for guidance, but where language and religion are concerned, no subterfuge will avail them here. When we draw attention to the unacceptability of the ban on the Russian language and the UOC, we are told, at best, that when a comprehensive settlement is reached, this aspect will be taken into account “in the package.” Yet the requirements of the UN Charter cannot be made the subject of bargaining. They must be upheld unconditionally, without any caveats. Those who cosset the Kiev regime are duty-bound to ensure that this is done. In practice, however, Ursula von der Leyen and other figures in Brussels and across European capitals declare with fervour that Ukraine is moving towards the European Union and must continue to be supported with funds and weapons, because – note well – “Ukraine is defending European values.” This implies that racism, the persecution of the Church and its clergy, and the glorification of Nazism in the loathsome, bestial forms of Ukrainian nationalism are the very values on which the European Union today rests. President of Finland Alexander Stubb recently made a wistful confession: “Western countries are now learning more from Ukraine than Ukraine is learning from them.”

Nowhere in the world, save for Ukraine, is an entire language banned. This is to say nothing of the fact that it is one of the official languages of the UN. One can speak Arabic and Farsi in Israel, and Hebrew – in any Arab country and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there is a Jewish community with its own synagogues. Even in Ireland, one can speak English. Yet in Ukraine, Russian is banned, and, as we understand it, the members of the EU and NATO are perfectly content with this. They even take their cue from Vladimir Zelensky – as the Baltic states do.

Naturally, I cannot fail to mention the position of the guardian of the UN Charter – the Secretary-General of our Organisation. For a long time, since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, he and his official representatives have repeated one and the same thing: “The conflict must be settled on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the relevant General Assembly resolutions , and the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” In response to our regular remarks, including those addressed personally to Mr António Guterres, pointing out that the Charter contains a whole series of other principles, including the right of nations to self-determination and respect for the right to one’s native language and religion, we were told that the formulation regarding Ukraine was “well-considered and not subject to change.”

When President Donald Trump announced that Greenland could well become part of the territory of the United States, the official UN spokesperson was asked at a press conference what he thought about this. He replied: “The matter must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the principle of the territorial integrity of Denmark and the right of the population of Greenland to self-determination.”

During the press conference held on January 29 of this year, António Guterres was asked: “Does the UN believe that the right of self-determination applicable to Crimea and Donbass?” The Secretary-General replied (I am compelled to quote him in full): “We have had very interesting discussions on this. And there are two principles that are essential. First principle is territorial integrity of states. The other principle is self-determination of peoples. But, self-determination of peoples has a number of requisites. So, the way it is defined has a number of requisites. And after a very careful study by our Office of Legal Affairs, it is our position that the principle of self-determination does not apply in the situations of Crimea and Donbas. So, in that situation, the principle that prevails is the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” If anyone has understood a word of that, I envy them.

As we can see, Greenland is not Crimea nor is it Donbass, and “never the twain shall meet.” We await the continuation of this “soap opera” with keen anticipation; it will be interesting to hear the Secretariat’s reaction to possible questions from journalists about the plans of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We hope that the new Secretary-General will return the language used in the statements of the Secretariat’s official representatives to the international legal mainstream.

This might perhaps also help our Western colleagues, above all the European ones, to return to the realms of reality and to realise what consequences their reckless course of unstinting support for Ukrainian Nazism is leading to, and has already led to.

In conclusion, I will once again refer to the consensus Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The Declaration clearly stipulates that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are applicable to those states which comply with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and have a government representing the whole people inhabiting the given territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. It seems to me that it is obvious to all that the Kiev regime cannot be considered a government representing the interests of the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, whom it has branded “terrorists, subhumans and creatures.”

https://mid.ru/en/press_service/vizity-ministra/2146984/

Also
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/09/23/what-lavrov-told-the-un-security-council/
with video

Genocide is Embedded in America’s “Humanitarian Wars”.

Posted by

0

War on Iraq : Five US Presidents, Five British Prime Ministers, More than Thirty Years of Duplicity, and Counting….

From Global Research

By Felicity Arbuthnot and Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research 6 August 2010
Global Research, May 02, 2026 republished

Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky on America’s “Humanitarian Wars”, followed by an incisive and carefully documented article by Veteran War Correspodent Felicity Arbuthnot on The War on Iraq.

***

Introduction  

“Is it a mere coincidence? In recent history, from the Vietnam war to the present, the month of March has been chosen by the Pentagon and NATO military planners as the “best month” to go to war.

With the exception of the War on Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO and allied led military operations over a period of more than half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by U.S. ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Ides of March (Idus Martiae) is a day in the Roman calendar which broadly corresponds to March 15. The Ides of March is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.

Lest we forget, the month of March (in the Roman Calendar) is dedicated to Mars (Martius), the Roman God of War.

March 2024 marks the 21st anniversary of the onslaught of the war on Iraq.

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

In March, we will also be commemorating the Vietnam War launched on March 8, 1965 following the adoption by the US Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to dispatch ground forces to Vietnam.

We will also be remembering NATO’s War on Yugoslavia which was launched on March 24, 1999 under Operation “Noble Anvil”.

All these wars, according to the media, are peace-making undertakings. They are tagged as “Humanitarian Wars” under the banner of “Responsibility to Protect (R2P). 

January-February 2024, we commemorated the thirty-third anniversary of so-called Gulf War, namely the first genocidal attack against  Iraq. 

“In Geneva, on 9th January 1991, then Secretary of State James Baker –a “diplomat” who stated: “We will reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age”– met Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Tareq Aziz, with a letter from Bush Snr., promising the destruction of Iraq, if Kuwait was not withdrawn from by 15th January. Tareq Aziz stated he would not deliver the letter.” (Felicity Arbuthnot)

Sending Countries “Back to the Stone-Age” 

Iraq

Secretary of State James Baker stated: 
“We will reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age”

During that first war [Gulf War], Secretary of State James Baker told the Iraqi foreign minister that “we will return you to the pre-industrial age.”

Baker’s words were prophetic. The American-led coalition delivered 88,000 tons of bombs, equivalent … to seven Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs.

The bombing unquestionably set out to destroy the civilian infrastructure, leveling oil refineries, electrical plants and transportation networks. (The Nation, May 28, 2007)

Vietnam

General Curtis LeMay is quoted as saying in relation to North Vietnam:
“they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
( Curtis Lemay, 1965 autobiography (co-author with MacKinlay Kantor)

Pakistan 

“The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the stone age” after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America’s war on Afghanistan, 

… General Pervez Musharraf, said the threat was delivered by the assistant secretary of state, Richard Armitage, in conversations with Pakistan’s intelligence director … ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age’,”. … (The Guardian, September 22, 2006, emphasis added)

Israel

 “We are fighting against animals”, Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant 

Genocide is Embedded in America’s ‘Humanitarian Wars”

Is this not what Israel –with the firm support of the Biden Administration– is  carrying out in Palestine?

All U.S. led wars have targeted hospitals and schools.

I recall Twenty-five years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, when NATO began the bombing of Belgrade under Operation “Allied Force ”,

“the children’s hospital was the object of air attacks. It had been singled out by military planners as a strategic target”. 

The conduct of war crimes and genocide is integral part of what is euphemistically call “US Foreign Policy”. 

The history of US-led wars confirms that murdering millions of civilians is an integral part of America’s global war agenda.

From Dresden to Gaza (1945-2024): The Death of 40+ Million People

During and since World War II , the United States has killed more than 40 million people in a number of countries, “most of them civilians, either directly or through proxy by its puppet regimes”:

Continue reading →

EU threatens foreign observers of referenda in Donbass, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions

Posted by

0

From RT

EU threatens foreign observers over Donbass referendums

The sanctions, if agreed, may also affect those monitoring votes on joining Russia in Zaporozhye and Kherson regions

The EU will slap sanctions on anyone involved in referendums on joining Russia in the Donbass republics, as well as in Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, according to Peter Stano, a spokesman for the bloc’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.

“There would be consequences for all people, who participate in the illegal, illegitimate referendums,” Stano warned on Tuesday, the fifth and final day of voting.

Stano did not rule out the possibility of foreign observers, including EU citizens, also facing restrictions over any support they have given to the process. He said it would be up to member states to decide who falls under the sanctions regime.

Another high-ranking EU foreign policy official, Luc Devigne, also told European lawmakers on Tuesday that individuals who are “obviously linked” to the referendums would be targeted in the next sanctions package.

Residents of France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Brazil and other countries have reportedly arrived to monitor voting in the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republics (LPR), and the regions of Zaporozhye and Kherson, which are mostly controlled by Russian forces.

Ukraine and its Western backers have labeled the referendums a “sham,” vowing that they won’t recognize their results regardless of the outcome. The polls in the plebiscite closed at 4pm local time (1pm GMT) on Tuesday. The head of the LPR, Leonid Pasechnik, said preliminary results would be ready by this evening.

Russia sent its troops into Ukraine on February 24, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

In February 2022, the Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states and demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.

https://www.rt.com/russia/563612-eu-referendum-donbass-sanctions/

‘Ode to Joy,’ followed by chaos and despair

Posted by

0

White Helmets promo concert in NY featured “Ode to Joy” by Beethoven, a favorite of Hitler.

Author’s points are well taken except he decries exclusion of Turkey from the EU. Now Erdogan’s government policies are on full display. which actually fits right in with the sordid, aggressive policies of the EU/NATO.

From the NY Times

By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
DEC. 24, 2007

London

LAST week, European Union leaders put an end to a decade of diplomatic wrangling and signed the Treaty of Lisbon, which outlined a complete overhaul of the organization, including the creation of a permanent post of European Union president to represent Europe on the world stage. During the ceremony at Lisbon’s grandiose Jerónimos Monastery, a choir performed Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” in the background. While the fourth movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, first performed in 1824, may seem an innocuous choice for the official anthem of the European Union (it was declared such in 1972), it actually tells much more than one would expect about Europe’s predicament today.

The “Ode to Joy” is more than just a universally popular piece of classical music that has become something of a cliché during the holiday season (especially, oddly, in Japan, where it has achieved cult status). It has also been, for more than a century, what literary theorists call an “empty signifier” — a symbol that can stand for anything.

In early 20th-century France, the Nobel laureate Romain Rolland declared it to be the great humanist ode to the brotherhood of all people, and it came to be called “the Marseillaise of humanity.” In 1938, it was performed as the high point of the Reichsmusiktage, the Nazi music festival, and was later used to celebrate Hitler’s birthday. In China during the Cultural Revolution, in an atmosphere of total rejection of European classics, it was redeemed by some as a piece of progressive class struggle.

In the 1950s and ’60s, when the West German and East German Olympic squads were forced to compete as a single team, gold medals were handed out to the strains of the “Ode to Joy” in lieu of a national anthem. It served as the anthem, too, for the Rhodesian white supremacist regime of Ian Smith. One can imagine a fictional performance at which all sworn enemies — Hitler and Stalin, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush — for a moment forget their adversities and participate in the same magic moment of ecstatic musical brotherhood.

There is, however, a weird imbalance in this piece of music. In the middle of the movement, after we hear the main melody (the “joy” theme) in three orchestral and three vocal variations, something unexpected happens that has bothered critics for the last 180 years: at Bar 331, the tone changes totally, and, instead of the solemn hymnic progression, the same “joy” theme is repeated in the “marcia turca” ( or Turkish march) style, a conceit borrowed from military music for wind and percussion instruments that 18th-century European armies adopted from the Turkish janissaries.

The mode then becomes one of a carnivalesque parade, a mocking spectacle — critics have even compared the sounds of the bassoons and bass drum that accompany the beginning of the marcia turca to flatulence. After this point, such critics feel, everything goes wrong, the simple solemn dignity of the first part of the movement is never recovered.

But what if these critics are only partly correct — what if things do not go wrong only with the entrance of the marcia turca? What if they go wrong from the very beginning? Perhaps one should accept that there is something of an insipid fake in the very “Ode to Joy,” so that the chaos that enters after Bar 331 is a kind of the “return of the repressed,” a symptom of what was errant from the beginning.

If this is the case, we should thus shift the entire perspective and perceive the marcia as a return to normality that cuts short the display of preposterous portentousness of what precedes it — it is the moment the music brings us back to earth, as if saying: “You want to celebrate the brotherhood of men? Here they are, the real humanity …”

And does the same not hold for Europe today? The second stanza of Friedrich Schiller’s poem that is set to the music in “Ode to Joy,” coming on the heels of a chorus that invites the world’s “millions” to “be embraced,” ominously ends: “But he who cannot rejoice, let him steal weeping away.” With this in mind, one recent paradox of the marcia turca is difficult to miss: as Europe makes the final adjustments to its continental solidarity in Lisbon, the Turks, despite their hopes, are outside the embrace.

So, when in the forthcoming days we hear again and again the “Ode to Joy,” it would be appropriate to remember what comes after this triumphant melody. Before succumbing to the warm sentiment of how we are all one big family, I think my fellow Europeans should spare a thought for all those who cannot rejoice with us, all those who are forced to “steal weeping away.” It is, perhaps, the only way we’ll put an end to the rioting and car burnings and other forms of the Turkish march we now see in our very own cities.

Top British NATO General wants cyber-attacks to trigger article 5 collective response

Posted by

0

From RT

https://www.rt.com/uk/379371-nato-cyber-attack-war/video/

March 3, 2017

NATO’s top European commander wants cyber-attacks to be considered a strong enough reason to trigger the alliance’s Article 5 which contains the principle of collective self-defense.

General Adrian Bradshaw, the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe accused Moscow of cyber and informational attacks, telling the BBC the West needs “a grand strategy” to combat Russian “hybrid warfare.”

Read more

The Russian Foreign Ministry Building on Moscow's Smolenskaya Square. © Ekaterina ChesnokovaNATO ignores terror threat coming from south, demonizes Russia instead – Moscow

Currently, Article 5 declares that an “armed attack” against one or more NATO member states shall be considered an attack against all of them, leading to an appropriate collective response.

For Bradshaw, however, this definition is not broad enough to ensure the effective operation of the Alliance.

“The West must respond by using all the tools at its disposal – economic, political, diplomatic as well as military – to deter Russian aggression”, the general reportedly said.

He wants the interpretation of Article 5 to be stretched to include other pretexts for collective self-defense other than an “armed attack”, which is what the wording of the article currently states.

Continue reading →

EU not welcome: Serbian Parliament shouts down Mogherini [VIDEO]

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ and RT

March 4, 2017 –
By J. Arnoldski –
The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, was met with a “less than warm welcome” in the Serbian parliament on March 3rd amidst her tour of the Balkans. Chants of “Serbia! Russia! We don’t need the EU” left Mogherini sitting uneasily in her seat.
–
Political analyst John Bosnitch explained this event to RT as “a door slammed shut in her [Mogherini’s] face.” Calling the protest in the Serbian parliament a “fair bit of resistance”, Bosnitch emphasized, is “an understatement of the first calibre.”
–
“The message that she was given was: ‘Go away; the people of this region do not want to join the EU…and please don’t try and start a Hitler-style two-front war fighting the English and fighting the Serbs at the same time, because you’ll lose,'” Bosnitch clarified.
–
When asked by RT why Mogherini was met with such fierce rejection by Serbian representatives, Bosnitch posited that the EU is a “carbon copy” of NATO, the “most powerful, aggressive military force on the earth” that bombed Serbia in 1999 “without any legal grounds” and subsequently partitioned the country.
–
In Bosnitch’s words, “Hey guys, now that we’ve bombed you, divided you, impoverished you, and demonized you, we’d like to invite you to become a lower member of the EU” is the real translation of Mogherini’s attempt to coax Serbia into the union.
–
“There is no outlet for the EU in this battle,” Bosnitch says. In his opinion, even if the Serbian people “are dragged into the EU kicking and screaming”, they would contribute to the implosion of Brussels’ union just as much they would while remaining outside of the EU. In this spirit, Bosnitch likened Serbia’s resistance to “European integration” to Brexit.
–
“If they take Serbia in, they get a trojan horse. If they don’t get Serbia in, they have another force along with the English and Brexit ripping the EU apart,” Bosnitch concluded.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/03/eu-not-welcome-serbian-parliament.html

EU and Turkey close airspace to Russian warplanes fighting Daesh

Posted by

0

What is clear is that the EU, Turkey, and the U.S., despite their smooth words to the contrary, will use all means at their disposal to stop Russia and keep ISIS. They intend for  ISIS/Daesh to go on and win. They have not changed their goal.

The public can trust these smiling deceitful NATO players, or judge them by their actions and history. Games over.

By Sputnik
Global Research, December 21, 2015
Sputnik News 19 December 2015

Europe and Turkey closed their airspace for Russian Long-Range Aviation planes carrying out airstrikes on Daesh positions in Syria, forcing Russian pilots to reroute, Deputy Commander Maj. Gen. Anatoly Konovalov said Saturday.

According to Konovalov, Russian pilots had to leave for Syria from Russia’s northernmost Olenegorsk military airport in order to bypass Europe and then cross the Mediterranean Sea toward Syria.

“There were certain issues that excluded the possibility of performing the tasks by other means. Europe would not allow us, Turkey would not allow us,” Konovalov said.He added that even in such conditions, Russia’s Long-Range Aviation proved its capability to perform the assigned tasks.

Russia has been conducting airstrikes on positions of IS, a group outlawed in many countries including Russia, in Syria since late September at the request of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The original source of this article is Sputnik News

Copyright © Sputnik, Sputnik News, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/eu-and-turkey-close-airspace-to-russian-warplanes-fighting-daesh/5497109

TTIP — Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — negotiations fall apart following mass protest in EU

Posted by

0

By Graham Vanbergen
Global Research, October 06, 2015
TruePublica 5 October 2015

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron is accusing those who oppose the expansive trade deal with the United States of making up horror stories about the agreement in order to poison the pact.

That agreement is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and critics all along the political spectrum are exposing the enormous dangers of the deal — all without having to invent a single scary story.

Back in January the EU Commission published their response to the consultation on TTIP and it was found that 97% of the 150,000 responses opposed the trade deal. These respondents represented the general public. The biggest petition in the EU’s history was then presented that contained the signatures of 2 million citizens (now nearly 3 million) opposed to TTIP. Both were rejected as were proposals even for a simple hearing of the European Citizens Initiative.

Then in April this year, thousands of protestors took to the streets of cities all over Europe as unelected officials of the EU Commission continue to ignore the concerns of its citizens.

In June, fellow MEPs from many political parties who are also opposed to TTIP joined Ukip in standing, shouting, booing and clapping to show their dissatisfaction with proceedings. MEPs were due to set out their first formal position on TTIP since negotiations started two years ago and the meeting descended into chaos (video). The meeting was then stopped by the commissioners.

Meanwhile David Cameron has persistently attempted to call out those working to derail the deal. Cameron has accused critics of inventing false scare stories whilst urging business chiefs to help make the case to overcome sustained attacks from left-wing opponents and warned Britain would “rue the day if we miss this opportunity” to open up transatlantic markets.

Cameron, who (increasingly) seldom listens to the general public or elected members of parliament representing the electorate will no doubt use all his powers to get this deal though to redeem himself after being called incompetent by his own military generals and by the Obama administration over Syria.

In sharp comparison, both Paris and Berlin want the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS) of TTIP removed from the transatlantic trade treaty currently being negotiated with Washington. This is a game changer.

Matthias Fekl, the French Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, told EurActiv France that he would “never allow private tribunals in the pay of multinational companies to dictate the policies of sovereign states, particularly in certain domains like health and the environment”.

That was back in January. Nine months later and France has now reinforced that message and gone one big step forward.

In an interview with Sud-Ouest, Matthias Fekl threatened to “call a complete halt” to the TTIP negotiations if things do not change. EurActiv France reports. America has shown no desire to change any of the major issues that have been challenged.

Fekl told the French newspaper that he believes the “total lack of transparency” in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations poses a “democratic problem”.

Fekl, the Minister of State for Foreign Trade called on the United States to show “reciprocity” in the negotiations. “American members of parliament have access to a much higher number of documents than we do in Europe,” he said.

The German people are now taking a stand and now it is being reported in the USA that sentiment is going against the deal – “It is entirely possible that the U.S. could seek to conclude the deal in the next few years only to find that European governments are unwilling to risk the ire of their voters”.

Matthias Fekl, explained that, ever since the negotiations began in 2013, “These negotiations have been and are being conducted in a total lack of transparency,” and that France has, as of yet, received “no serious offer from the Americans.”

The reasons for this stunning public rejection had probably already been accurately listed more than a year ago. Jean Arthuis, a member of the European Parliament, and formerly France’s Minister of Economy and Finance, headlined in Le Figaro, on 10 April 2014, “7 good reasons to oppose the transatlantic treaty”. There is no indication that the situation has changed since then, as regards the basic demands that President Obama is making. Arthuis said at that time, that he was opposed to;

  1. Private arbitration of disputes between States and businesses. Such a procedure is strictly contrary to the idea that I have of the      sovereignty of States. …
  2. Any questioning of the European system of appellations of origin. According to the US proposal, there would be a non-binding register, and only for wines and spirits. Such a reform would kill many European local products, whose value is based on their certified origin.
  3. Signing of an agreement with a power that legalizes widespread and systematic spying on my fellow European citizens and European businesses. As long as the agreement does not protect the personal data of European and US citizens, it cannot be signed.
  4. Allowing the United States proposal of a transatlantic common financial space, who adamantly refuse a common regulation of finance, and they refuse to abolish systematic discrimination by the US financial markets against European financial services.
  5. The questioning of European health protections. We do not want our animals treated with growth hormones nor products derived from GMOs, or chemical decontamination of meat, or of genetically modified seeds or non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal feed.
  6. The signing of an agreement if it does not include the end of the US monetary dumping. Since the abolition of the gold convertibility of the dollar and the transition to the system of floating exchange rates, the dollar is both American national currency and the main unit for exchange reserves in the world. The Federal Reserve then continually practices monetary dumping, by influencing the amount of dollars available to facilitate exports from the United States. As things now stand, America’s monetary weapon has the same effect as customs duties against every other nation. [And he will not sign unless it’s removed.]
  7. Allow the emerging digital services in Europe to be swept up by US giants such as Google, Amazon or Netflix. They’re giant absolute masters in tax optimization, which make Europe a “digital colony.”

France is now considering “all options including an outright termination of negotiations” says France’s Trade Minister.

Concern over the impact of TTIP has united disparate groups from French farmers to German constitutional lawyers and politicians on the left and right.

50,000 demonstrators are expected to gather in front of Berlin’s central train station on October 10th to protest both the TTIP and a similar deal between the EU and Canada, known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). That event is part of the week-long International Days of Action against corporate-friendly trade deals. Two thirds of Germans are now opposed to the deal, hence the expected strong turn-out.

The European public, already heavily opposed to TTIP also oppose America’s bombings of Middle Eastern countries, which have forced hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe. European leaders are being compelled to question their relationship and alliance with the United States.

David Cameron, already in breach of basic democratic principles back in Britain by sending special forces ground troops and RAF bombing missions in Syria is of course used to supporting the dismantling of democracy, no matter whether at home or abroad.

Universally ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country, including Britain, whose governments has called for Assad to go was a respectable YouGov report that concluded some 55% of Syrians wanted Assad to stay.  Cameron had one third less of the electorate supporting him at the last election than Assad had of his people.

The result of America’s constant pressure and bullying of its european ‘allies’ to get involved in the bombing of countries where millions of refugees are expected in the year ahead, is that the european people are, in greater numbers, questioning the rationality of their elected leaders. This has only added to EU citizens suspicions over secret trade deals such as TTIP with America and is not only empowering them but forcing their own leaders to rethink the order of importance.

America seems to have forgotten Europe’s own pressures. Between the economic crisis that has rumbled on since 2008, the threat of a “Grexit” earlier in the summer, security concerns and the rise of terrorism and now the humanitarian crisis unfolding on Europe’s borders with the arrival of so many refugees, the political unity of Europe is at stake. There is a clear inability by politicians to unite on major challenges that may well pull the EU apart, say politicians – TTIP is no longer an imperative on the agenda.

Copyright © Graham Vanbergen, TruePublica, 2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-negotiations-fall-apart-following-mass-protest-in-the-eu/5479985

European Parliament surrenders to Washington on Russia policy

Posted by

0

By Stephen Lendman
Posted on Global Research, June 13, 2015

The European Parliament, Council of the European Union and European Commission share EU legislative functions separate from individual member states’ right of initiative power to propose and enact new laws for their respective countries.

During a June 10 plenary session in Strasbourg (two days ahead of Russia’s National Day), MEP’s adopted a resolution (494 to 135 with 69 abstentions) urging EU reassessment of relations with Moscow because of Ukraine crisis conditions.

The measure includes a litany of “Russia-bashing” accusations and Big Lies claiming:

  • “Russia’s direct and indirect involvement in the armed conflict in Ukraine…”
  • it’s annexing Crimea;
  • violating Georgian territory; and
  • regional economic coercion and political destabilization.

“(B)ecause of its action in Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine, (Russia) can no longer be treated as, or considered, a “strategic partner,” the resolution said.

It urged countering Russian hard truths irresponsibly called propaganda – wanting important sources of news, information and analysis like RT International and Sputnik News replaced by Western-style government sponsored disinformation and Big Lies on issues mattering most.

Fact: Russia-bashing has nothing to do with its nonexistent interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs, violating its sovereignty, annexing its territory, or waging war.

Fact: It has everything to do with attacking Russia’s sovereign independence and vitally important opposition to America’s imperial agenda.

Fact: It’s about promoting regime change – wanting pro-Western stooge governance replacing Putin.

Fact: It’s wanting Russian resources and population exploited – strip-mining the country for profit, transforming its people into serfs.

Fact: It’s about European nations partnering with America’s dirty agenda at the expense of their own interests – risking another major war on their territory.

Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin said “(e)verybody understands who tells the Europeans what they should do, and why.”

Fact: It’s about America wanting other nations doing its fighting and dying for it to enrich its privileged interests more than already.

On Thursday, US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said America needs “a network of allies.”

“We really want to play an away game, and we need teammates to do it. The very last thing we want is to play a home game.”

Fact: It’s about letting police state justice override fundamental human and civil rights.

Fact: It’s about replacing democracy with money-controlled tyranny.

Fact: It’s about creating a world more unfit to live in than already.

Fact: It’s a loud and clear call to everyone to unite against a monster threatening fundamental liberties too precious to lose.

The European Parliament’s resolution was based on a report by hardline Lithuanian MEP Gabrielius Laandsbergis irresponsibly saying:

“With its aggression against Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, the Russian leadership has put our policies at a crossroads. It’s up to the Kremlin to decide now which way it will go – cooperation or deepening alienation.”

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Russian direct or indirect aggression in Ukraine. If any existed it would have been revealed long ago.

During his 13th annual marathon Q & A session in April, Putin forthrightly said “(i)n regard to the question of whether or not our troops are in Ukraine, I’ll say directly and definitely that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.”

An April 16 Kremlin tweet said “Putin on the rumours that Russian troops are deployed in #Ukraine: I want to make this clear, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.”

Russia alone continues forthright efforts for diplomatic conflict resolution. Anti-Russian propaganda drowns out hard truths. It exceeds the worst of Cold War vitriol. It risks the unthinkable – possible confrontation between the world’s two most formidable nuclear powers.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/european-parliament-surrenders-to-washington-on-russia-policy/5455362

The $160 Billion cost: Why Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych spurned EU’s offer, on 20 Nov. 2013

Posted by

0

Why didn’t Yanukovich tell the Ukrainian people? Why did he keep this information hidden?

By Eric Zuesse
March 27, 2015
Global Research

“Burying the lede” is a way that ‘news’ professionals hide or “bury” things while ‘reporting’ on them; and the biggest example of this in modern times occurred when Germany’s Spiegel (Mirror) magazine headlined its cover-story on 24 November 2014, ”Summit of Failure: How the EU Lost Russia over Ukraine.” On the magazine’s front cover, it was instead bannered as “Kalte Krieger — Geschichte einer Machtprobe: Wie Merkel und Putin Europa an den Rand des Abgrunds brachten” which translates as: ”Cold Warrior — History of a Showdown: How Merkel and Putin brought Europe to the Edge of the Abyss.” This was a very lengthy report, 7,000 words, but the historically blockbuster revelation in it, which the global press has ignored, and/or themselves buried by similarly mentioning it without headlining it or leading with it (nor even linking to it), was this (which would have been a fair headline for that news report, since it’s 99% of that news-report’s real value): “EU’s Offer to Ukraine Would Have Cost Ukraine $160B.” (I hope that the headline that I used above is even better, however.)

And, so: now you know why, on 20 November 2013, Yanukovych turned that offer down — and the rest was history (the “Maidan” demonstrations, and all the rest, producing the Ukrainian civil war, and the new and much hotter version of the old Cold War, including all of those economic sanctions against Russia, and the resulting boom in nuclear weapons on both sides, and the thousands of corpses in the eastern Donbass region of what used to be Ukraine).

This blockbuster revelation was in merely a brief, 231-word passage within the 7,000-word article, and nothing further was said about it than these mere 231 words.

Here it is (as given in Spiegel’s online English edition of the article’s second half — and the article’s first half was here, but it contains nothing of this blockbuster revelation):

Kiev, Presidential Palace

Nov. 19, 2013

At Barroso’s behest, Füle traveled to Kiev once again to meet with Yanukovych – and the Ukrainian president got straight to the point. In talks with Putin, Yanukovych told Füle, the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. “I was really surprised to learn about it,” Yanukovych said. … “There are the costs that our experts have calculated,” Yanukovych replied. ”What experts?” Füle demanded to know. The Ukrainian president described to his bewildered guest the size of the losses allegedly threatening Ukraine should it sign the agreement with the EU.

Later, the number $160 billion found its way into the press, more than 50 times greater than the $3 billion calculated by the German advisory group. The total came from a study conducted by the Institute for Economics and Forecasting at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and it was a number that Yanukovych would refer to from then on.

“Stefan, if we sign, will you help us?” Yanukovych asked. Füle was speechless. ”Sorry, we aren’t the IMF. Where do these numbers come from?” he finally demanded. “I am hearing them for the first time.” “They are secret numbers,” Yanukovych replied. “Can you imagine what would happen if our people were to learn of these numbers, were they to find out what convergence with the EU would cost our country?”

Though that was a poorly-written passage, it does clearly state why Yanukovych couldn’t possibly have accepted the offer. The passage makes no connection between, on the one hand, “the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. ‘I was really surprised to learn about it,’ Yanukovych said,” and, on the other, “‘There are the costs that our experts have calculated,’ Yanukovych replied.”

Did Putin’s statement cause Yanukovych to request this new analysis from Ukraine’s National Academy of Sciences? We just don’t know. The reporters didn’t say. Maybe they didn’t even wonder about that. All that the article tells us is: the latter scientific institution calculated that if the EU’s offer were to be accepted, the cost to Ukraine would be $160B.

Why, then, was this blockbuster news-item buried, so that virtually no one noticed it? Perhaps the key passage to provide a hint to explain this burying (which hint appears in the article’s first half) was “Berlin continued to focus its efforts on Tymoshenko [whom the Ukrainian government had imprisoned on a corruption conviction, but Merkel — like Obama — was insisting that she be freed from prison], it failed to recognize the real danger: The Russian Federation’s power play.” The only actual “power play” that the article describes from Russia was “the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. ‘I was really surprised to learn about it,’ Yanukovych said.” Apparently, Putin’s “danger,” his merely “explaining” that, was, to the writers of the Spiegel ‘news’ report, a “power play.” The anti-Russian slant is blatant there.

In other words: This article’s writers, evidently, needed to find a way to present a negative view of Russia, and especially of Putin. Therefore, focusing their story and presentation around this particular blockbuster revelation (which went in the contrary direction) was out of the question for them — and especially for their employer.

So: now you know why Yanukovych, the very next day after his learning about the $160B price tag of the EU’s offer, turned it down, and also why this revelation is still news, more than a year later — just as it was news to me until I happened upon it only today.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-160-billion-cost-why-ukraines-viktor-yanukovych-spurned-eus-offer-on-20-nov-2013/5439125