Germany accuses NATO of “dangerous propaganda”. America’s strategic objective is to prevent a German-Russian alliance

From Russia Insider, March 23, 2015
Jens Wernicke and Dr. Daniele Ganser

This article originally appeared at NachDenkSeiten. Translated for RI by Mihajlo Doknic

The German Chancellery has accused NATO chief Philip M. Breedlove of “dangerous propaganda”. The question: what to think about this critique coming from a government that uses this kind of propaganda technique itself. Jens Wernicke, media scientist and author of several books, talked with the renowned Swiss peace researcher and NATO expert Dr. Daniele Ganser.

Mr. Ganser, the German Chancellery accuses NATO chief Philip M. Breedlove, of “dangerous propaganda”. Breedlove exaggerates Russia’s military involvement in East Ukraine, for example. What is going on here? Is the German government just accusing NATO of war propaganda?

The German Chancellery is right with its critique. In my opinion, something dangerous is happening right now: US generals like Breedlove are trying to provoke a war, where Germans and Russians would kill each other in order to weaken both countries. This is a cynical, actually a diabolical plan. But this is exactly what US strategist like Georg Friedman, director of the Stratfor think tank, are suggesting. United, Germany and Russia are the only power that could threaten the US, Friedman said in a speech in February 2015 in Chicago.

“Our primordial interest [preventing a German-Russian alliance] is to ensure that will never happen,” said Friedman.

“The US, as an empire, cannot intervene in Eurasia all the time,” he explained. Therefore they must turn countries against each other, so they don’t build close alliances. “I suggest something President Ronald Reagan used against Iraq and Iran: He supported both war parties!” Freidman stated. The war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988 claimed at least 400.000 dead, so from the point of peace science it is frightening what Friedman suggests. “So the Iranians and Iraqis fought against each other and not against us,” explained Freidman in his speech. “That was cynical and amoral. But it worked.”

The USA cannot occupy Eurasia. The same moment we put our boots on European soil, we will be outnumbered due to demographics. In my opinion the radical US generals like Breedlove are trying to implement this strategy, where in future German and Russian Soldiers kill each other in Ukraine, thus destabilizing and weakening the whole of East Europe. That would be a catastrophe. Therefore a peace movement needs to encourage an alternative solution, like the neutrality of Ukraine. No NATO membership and friendship between Germany and Russia.

How is NATO trying to fuel this conflict?

NATO General Breedlove often sticks out by spreading exaggerated and untrue claims. This is how NATO is fueling the war. This is dangerous, because the situation is very tense, as we know. On the 12th of November 2014 Breedlove claimed that Russian toops and tanks have marched into Ukraine! But that wasn’t true and it wasn’t just a little thing. Literally the NATO general said: “We have seen that Russian troops, Russian tanks, Russian artillery and air defense systems have moved into Ukraine.” BBC and other mass media spread that worldwide but it was a lie.

And US General Ben Hodges, commander of the US troops in Europe, also pushes for war by supporting the Ukrainian army. In January 2015 he visited a military hospital in Kiev and handed over a medal for bravery of the US Army to a wounded Ukrainian soldier! That, of course, increases tension.

However, the US General Hodges shows symbolically: The US is an “active party of war” in the Ukraine. It stands by the Ukrainian army that is fighting the Russian supported separatists in East Ukraine. Because Germany is a NATO member, there is a danger that German soldiers are dragged into this war by the US. Similar to Afghanistan after 2001. If that happens, then we have exactly the situation Friedman is asking for: Germans and Russians shooting at each other in the Ukraine. Of course I hope that this won’t happen. However, a peace movement needs to raise this and warn of such dangers in order to avoid them.

Is this a very common thing, I mean, that NATO lies, exaggerates or deceives?

Yes, regrettably NATO has, on a regular basis, combined lies and war. In my book NATO’s secret armies in Europe. Staged terror and clandestine warfare I show how, during the Cold War, NATO had built in Western countries, supported by CIA and the British secret service MI6, secret armies, of which existence the governments and population didn’t know anything.

Especially the US generals are dangerous, because they have been continuously fighting wars in different countries during the last 70 years. As representatives of an empire they are not only used to kill but also to deceive. General Lyman Lemnitzer, for example, who served as SACEUR of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) between 1963 and 1969, so one of Breedlove’s predecessors, suggested in the 60s that the US should stage a war against Cuba by destroying an American ship at the military base in Guantanamo and by staging terror attacks in Washington, and then for both crimes accuse Fidel Castro in order to get the American public behind the war. John F. Kennedy, however, stopped the operation [Northwoods]. But it shows, how dangerous the officers in the Pentagon are.

Is only the US pushing for wars or are other countries also involved?

NATO has 28 members and unfortunately other NATO countries are involved in war propaganda as well. For example, the Brits! In March 2003, before they attacked Iraq, Tony Blair, the then prime minister, said: “Iraq is in possession of chemical and biological weapons. Its rockets are ready for use within 45 minutes.” That was a lie! The attack on Iraq by USA and Great Britain started, nevertheless, without an UN mandate. So it was illegal!

It was also an illegal aggression when NATO, on the 24th of March 1999, started bombing Serbia. Because NATO didn’t have a mandate of the UN Security Council. Back then it was Germany under the Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the Defense Minister Rudolph Scharping and the Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, that actively took part in the aggression [War on Yugoslavia], together with the US. In the run-up to the aggression lies were spread to get the people behind this war. Later, in 2014, Schröder admitted that NATO violated International Law. “When the question came up how to deal with developments in Yugoslavia and Kosovo respectively, we sent our planes, our Tornados [German warplanes] to Serbia together with NATO and bombed a sovereign state without a Security Council Resolution,” admitted Schröder self-critically.

How come that in those cases nobody raises its voice and we only read the same NATO statements with their arguments?

The mass media in Germany are pushing people into a direct confrontation with Russia, in a way the radicals in the US, like Stratfor director Friedman, are asking for. It means, they fuel animosity towards Russia. And very rarely there is a critical discussion about NATO or about the strategic interests of the US, those powers that are fueling the war in Ukraine.

Many journalists don’t even call the US an empire fearing for their jobs and other things. But it is apparent that the US is an empire of our times, the most powerful nation that, of course, is pursuing its national interests. This fact is rarely raised by the mass media. So many people watching TV don’t even know the term ‚US Empire’ or the strategic interests of this empire in Eurasia. Therefore, critical people disappointed by the TV and Newspapers are trying to inform themselves through alternative media on the Internet.

So, do you think the critique by our [German] government is a sign that they finally try to break the global spiral of violence and distance itself from propaganda in favour of respectful dialogue with Russia? And, is our government more credible than NATO itself?

I am from Switzerland, whicht is not part of NATO. So I do look at the German policy and Chancellor Merkel from the outside. And I see that many people are concerned with the situation [war] in Ukraine, because of its proximity. And most of the Germans that I know, they don’t want a future, where German soldiers and Russian soldiers shoot at each other! But I am not sure what the German government wants. They move in a zigzag course. One day, as a NATO member, they fuel, together with the US, the war in the Ukraine by increasing tensions with Russia. And sometimes they try to keep the friendship or at least the respect with Russia by publically criticizing NATO war-hawk Breedlove. So which line will be predominant in future its hard to tell.

What is your assessment of the departure of the hawk Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO General Secretary? Will Jens Stoltenberg establish himself as a peaceful successor? To put it differently: How much influence has a Secretary General actually on NATO policies?

If you study the history of NATO it is easy to notice that the post of Secretary General is always staffed with an European, now Stoltenberg, a Norwegian, and before that, Rasmussen, a Dane. But the Europeans should not be mistaken as to who is calling the shots in NATO, it is the US! Secretary General is not the most important post. It is actually the one of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, because here lies the military command. An American, now Breedlove, always holds this position.

Has Stoltenberg publically criticized Breedlove or tried to stop him? No, he is not able to. His job as Secretary General is primarily to give NATO an European face. This is better received in Europe, than having a US diplomat appear all the time.

So I don’t believe that Stoltenberg is able or willing to transform NATO into a peaceful organization. Also because of the track record of NATO in the past two decades: NATO wars and the technique of, Regime Change’ have left countries in ruins and traumatized people, in Libya, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. So I hope that Ukraine won’t be put on this list too!

Thank you for the interview.

Stratfor “forecasted” US bases on Russia’s borders, now “forecasts” Russia’s fragmentation. Who will stand for Russia?

Posted on Fort Russ

Je suis Putin

March 12, 2015

Translated by Kristina RusA man like Putin: by 2018, each region will need their own Vladimir Vladimirovich.

On February 28 Stratfor posted a very interesting document – Decade Forecast: 2015-2025.

“Stratfor” is “Strategic Forecasting Inc.”, also known as the “shadow” or “private CIA” engaged in a highly profitable business of collecting, evaluating and forecasting information. “Statfor” was founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, a former professor of political science, who is now the director of the organization. Today the audience of the company is 300 thousand paid subscribers and over two million free subscribers.

Among them – Coca-Cola, which gets advice about the stability of the situation in China on the eve of the Olympic games in Beijing; the corporation “Northrup Grumman” interested about the possibility of Japan obtaining nuclear weapons; “Intel”, asking about the presence of Hezbollah in Latin America and their likelihood to carry out terrorist acts, the owner of hotel chain “Radisson”; looking for the end date of the offensive of militant Islamist groups. Also the services of Stratfor are used by “Goldman Sachs”, “Merrill Lynch”, US marine corps and Georgetown University. Each pays 20 thousand dollars a year to get their hands on a tailored confidential information.

However, Friedman has more serious clients, namely the U.S. State Department, Pentagon, and the large global financial oligarchy standing behind them.

It is easy to figure out, connecting Stratfor’s predictions with the subsequent actions of the government and the U.S. army.

Thus, on March 27 [2014], George Friedman published an article titled “American strategy after Ukraine: from Estonia to Azerbaijan”. There, among other points, particular focus was on the military strategy of the United States against Russia after the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. In particular, Friedman rightly argued that at this point in time, NATO is not able to wage war against the Russian Federation due to the long stretch of its Western front line and the length of communications for the supply of food, fuel and ammunition for the battle units.

The solution for this problem Friedman proposed by moving military bases directly to the Russian border at several points, as the only possible condition for full deployment of a punitive campaign against Russia, which is rapidly getting out of control of the United States.

And, by the end of the year, this process took place in reality.

So, in mid-December of last year for several days the skies were closed over Zaporozhye, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, and witnesses reported that a large number of transport aircraft, the type of “Hercules” and others landed in Ukrainian airports, bringing the equipment, vehicles and troops, consisting mainly of soldiers of private military companies. The numbers mentioned were about the size of a division from 10 to 15 thousand people, mostly mercenaries from PMC “Academi” (until 2009 it was called Blackwater, owned by Eric Prince, executing orders from the Pentagon).

Previously they were already seen in Donetsk, later in Mariupol. A secret NATO base was set up in  Kharkov oblast: already much has been transported by land, the masks were off and airplanes were involved. Military experts pointed out that some of the equipment and troops was moved from a military base in Hungary near Debretsen. Previously on the territory of Ukraine trains were seen with American armored vehicles, among which were BMPs Bradley, BTRs Stryker and Hummers.

Therefore, the publications of “Stratfor” should be taken seriously.

The document before us is a geopolitical forecast for the next ten years, describing the future of all continents. I will not go into all the details – it has already been done by many analysts.

I will focus on key phrases and what I read between the lines. The article clearly articulates the strategic objective of establishing administrative control over Russia by way of its fragmentation – federalization. Here is a quote:

“To the West from Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania will try to return the regions once lost in the battle with the Russians. They will attempt to annex Ukraine and Belarus. In the South, Russia will lose the ability to control the North Caucasus; Central Asia will begin to destabilize. In the North-West, Karelia will try to return to Finland. In the Far East the coastal regions will start to conduct an independent policy, more associated with Japan, China and the United States, than with Moscow. Other regions will not necessarily seek autonomy, but may get it against their will. Main idea: there will not be a revolt against Moscow, on the contrary, the weakening Moscow will leave a vacuum. In this vacuum the separate fragments of the former Russian Federation will exist.

[Wait, is he talking about Ukraine!? – KR]

This will lead to a major crisis in the next decade. Russia possesses a vast nuclear arsenal, scattered across the country. The decline of the Moscow power will raise the question of control over these missiles and about how to guarantee restraint from their application. This will be a huge challenge for the United States. Washington is the only power, that can solve this problem…”

[So, America throws all its might to destabilize Russia, the end result of which will be loose nukes – Bravo! – KR]

Next, “Stratfor” talks about a necessity to create a stable and economically sustainable government in the nuclear regions, in order to neutralize the missiles by non-military means.

[Only America, the policeman of the world, can be a responsible owner of nuclear weapons – KR]

In the final part of the study the private intelligence agents laid down the fundamental principle of the American doctrine in relation to Russia:

“The US has entered the Cold war early, and (at least in Europe) did not suffer any losses. This is the guiding principle of the American foreign policy, brought almost to perfection: if a hegemon emerges in Europe [I can tell they are fans of Brzezinsky – KR], the US intervenes as early as possible, as during the Cold war, building alliances and positioning troops on the main defensive positions. Now this is done in relation to Russia. <…> The Americans will try to build a system of alliances, parallel to NATO, from the Baltic States to Bulgaria, and engage as many countries as possible. They will try to lure Turkey into the union and stretch it to Azerbaijan. The troops will be send to these countries in proportion to threats.”

[Imagine if Russia tried to enter into military unions with Canada and Mexico? – KR]

The State Department is well aware that under Vladimir Putin the task of federalization is not feasible, as all rehearsals and attempts of Maidan were ineffective and did not find support in society. In addition, the effectiveness of security forces that provide physical order in the capital is undeniable.

Therefore the main task now is to implement technologies of soft power, which include attempts to undermine the economy, the formation of anti-government public opinion through mass media, organizing round tables and conferences, work at universities and nudging the authorities in the provinces to gain more independence from Moscow.

“Stratfor” writes about this: “Given the structure of the Federation, in which profits from exports go first to Moscow, and only then are redirected to local governments, the regions receive a very different amount of this profit. This will lead to the repetition of the Soviet experience in the 1980’s and the 1990’s, when Moscow has lost the ability to maintain state infrastructure. All this will cause the regions to seek solutions independently, forming formal and informal autonomous associations. Economic ties between Moscow and the periphery will weaken.”

Now let us remember that the first public statement after the accession to the post of mayor of Yekaterinburg, Yevgeny Roizman, concerned “injustice that the money goes first to Moscow and then is distributed”, and subsequently a group of people close to Roizman held protests under the slogan “Stop feeding Moscow”. Among the protesters great activity was shown by young people from a foreign agent-NGO “Golos” (“Voice”), headed by the famous “color revolution technologist” Marko Ivkovich from Serbia, who was banned from entering Russia by FSB in 2012.

The fact is, in Russia the vertical of power now ends at the post of a governor, which allows municipalities to implement policies, different from the state, to form their own budgets controlling a city, using large funds to protect their business with security forces and mass media. At the start of the reform of local self-government, which should continue the vertical of power to the cities, the described system will be broken, and the American diplomats will capitalize on the resistance of local “princelings”.

[Not always will a region flourish if it is given more authority from the center. Instead the inherent culture of corruption in Russia may flourish under such arrangement, which will please Russia’s enemies. But of course local authorities will always demand more power and more control over financial flows – KR]

A key objective of the US is to beat Vladimir Putin at 2018 election, for which the entire arsenal of available technologies will be engaged –  marches, lowering of oil prices, political killings – we may likely see, for example, the general director and owner of the anti-Russian TV channel “Dozhd” (“Rain”), Natalia Sindeeva, shot with a bullet with minted initials of Vladimir Putin. History teaches us that often after a strong ruler comes a weak one, and Americans are well aware of it!

An important role, as conceived by the US, is given to the young generation born in 2000, who will turn 18 in 2018, and who had never lived without Putin. Who will they vote for? They did not, as the author of these lines and most of their readers, witness the bloody shoot-outs and cars exploding on the streets in the 90’s, total racketeering of business, pervasive corruption, deliberate destruction of industry, agriculture, army, non-payment of salaries for several months. Today in universities they are told romantic stories about the “real freedom” of that era, although it is appropriate to call it a time of chaos and anarchy. However, in certain ways they are synonymous with the concept of freedom.

In case US looses the next election for the President of Russian Federation, a special tool is prepared: actions of disobedience will take place across the regions, and their exit from the Russian Federation will begin, writes “Stratfor”. Rostislav Ishchenko, president of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting, in his article “It rips at the weakest spot” rightly notes: the revolutionaries in Yekaterinburg don’t even have to storm anything. The municipal authorities already are infiltrated with American collaborators, and the government of the region will not be able to immediately react – it is extremely passive and does not have the political will, and its staff consists of the officials who are keen to outlive one governor after another.

What should be our next steps?

First, we need absolute unification of the country, all the people – around the President and commander-in-chief. I am convinced, that the course taken by Vladimir Putin is completely justified. It assumes full sovereignty in all spheres of life, the priority of the interests of Russia as a determinant of state strategy, productive, mutually beneficial cooperation with countries in Latin America and Asia, uniting them around Russia as a new pole of power on Earth. This course is implemented competently, firmly and consistently, and also accurately. We must strongly support it, thwarting any attempts to split the society from the President by the liberals from the fifth column.

Secondly, the authority of the FSB, whose job is to defend the constitutional rights of citizens and territorial integrity of the state, containing anti-Russian activity, today is clearly lagging behind the demands of the time and the situation in the state, as well as the laws that ensure their authority.

I am talking about such precedents as activities of the notorious member of the Ekaterinburg City Duma and a friend of Yevgeny Roizman – Konstantin Kiselev. Professor of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural State University visited the U.S. and Kiev, lectured on “the utility of” Maidan and positively noting the “contribution” of Yarosh and Turchinov into “the building of the Ukrainian nation”, and even prepared an online conference with the leader of the “Right Sector” in Yekaterinburg.

In this situation, the power structures of Ekaterinburg looked completely toothless: formally no existing article of the criminal code of the Russian Federation applied to the activities of the “political scientist”. If Professor Kiselev called for direct appeals to overthrow the government and seize government buildings or promoted fascism – he could be subjected to the article for extremism, but smart and cautious MP never allowed himself to go that far. Each student, whom the liberal teacher pushed to the “right” frame of thinking, had to make the last step on his own and arrive at the desired conclusion. And the unauthorized contacts with foreign diplomats and agents of Western intelligence, positive coverage of color revolutions, is not a reason to start investigation under the current laws.

Numerous conductors of implementation in Russia of Western values continue their work – “RPR-Parnas”, “Progress Party”, “Civic platform”, “Yabloko”, non-profit organizations “Memorial”, “Voice”, “The Sakharov’s Center”, which this way or another are involved in the preparation of anti-government marches and destabilization of the population, undermining the image of the government, and numerous liberal media supporting them, distorting reality, causing panic. Their activities should be stopped.

If we take the example, as demanded by the liberals, from the United States of America, there after the September 11 terrorist attacks the authority of security structures was expanded. May be it’s our turn? Vladimir Putin has long been waiting for the public opinion to ripen. We already have a full “set” – preparation of color revolutions, assassinations, corruption and the coalition with Americans at local levels. Enough signals to act.

In reality, if we are to withstand the destructive forces, then at a minimum, we should not be weaker. If our special agencies will concede, we will lose in the struggle, and the CIA has historically always been stronger, almost unlimited in their scope of work and generously funded.

We need new legislative initiatives, including the introduction into the criminal code of definitions of activities of the fifth column. Together with public institutions, it is necessary to define appropriate measures of deterrence and punishment.

And the third and main conclusion, we need to start thinking about how to form a new generation of patriotic politicians at all levels of government. Already the US is trying to install their people at key positions. They need to be pushed out, but we need the human resources, and they need to be selected and educated.

To bet the political success only on Vladimir Putin, first of all, puts an enormous strain on him, and secondly, poses a security threat to him personally. We need to appoint its own Putin to each region and municipality, and then any attempts to overthrow the President will lose sense – because his course will be clearly planned and steadily continued at each level.

Our main motto should be: “Today we are all Putin”.