Anti-Syrian-war protest disrupts concert in Grand Central Station dedicated to so-called “White Helmets”(VIDEO)

This demonstrates that U.S. not just refuses to back down in its campaign against Syria, but instead is increasing in a hybrid warfare approach, with examples like Clooney’s film, the Academy Awards, and this concert in NY’s prominent Grand Central Station elevating the White Helmets. That open approach has advantages for peace and pro=Syria activists,  however — venues for educating the public about the situation there and the terrorist actions of the U.S. and its agents.

The U.S. government demonstrates that it is fixed on its course and will not stop until Syria is destroyed, utterly torn apart, and occupied by the West and its coalition partners. The iron fist inside the velvet glove — nothing has changed. Ignore the velvet glove, the smiles, the words of peace, the Hollywood approach; it is a magician’s trick, to distract while Syria is attacked.

From RT

Anti-Syrian-war protest disrupts White Helmets pop-up music tribute (VIDEO)
Advertisements

Fort Russ’s dirty-bomb false-flag warning was right

Fort Russ

August 6th, 2015

Fort Russ Staff
photo credit: Security Service of Ukraine
Yesterday J. Flores of our editorial management issued a public warning regarding a possible imminent dirty bomb threat.
It turns out that these suspicions were well founded.
The suspicion, according to Flores,  was based on two stories – Poroshenko’s urgent calling of the war council, and a sudden western media propaganda news-cycle fixation that Novorossiya militias may use a ‘dirty bomb’ in the Ukraine conflict, which began over last weekend.
Security Service of Ukraine
Today RT reported that the Ukrainian SBU has apprehended a ring of Uranium smugglers who had a ‘Pringles’ chips canister containing uranium-238 which they had intended to sell.
The RT story ‘strangely’ combines this report with a story about the Right Sektor clashes with the Kiev Junta.
This is interesting for us also, without stating it outright, we are  more free to draw the connection:
We are not unreasonable in speculating that the Right Sektor may have wanted to use a dirty bomb in the front on UAF forces, and blame the Novorossiyan side for it.  Western media was clearly establishing the narrative that Novorossiya would be responsible for it. This would have established several simultaneous goals for both the US and the Pravy Sektor.
The United States has taken an “adaptive approach”, a common feature in 4th Generation Warfare and Hybrid Warfare, which allows them to shift support between the Kiev Junta and the Pravy Sektor related groups.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/08/fort-russs-dirty-bomb-false-flag.html

The war on Yugoslavia and the U.S. regime change model — the real face of American “diplomacy”

“The lethality of American ‘diplomacy’ and the uncountable costs that can be incurred from resisting Washington’s will.”

From Sputnik, March 25, 2014
By Andrew Korybko

The 16th anniversary of NATO’s War on Yugoslavia gives cause to reflect on what American ‘diplomacy’ is really all about.

The US has long trumpeted itself as the only paragon of virtue and ‘defender of freedom’ in the world, going into overdrive with this message in the years following the Cold War. Millions of people were duped during this time, but their illusions were quickly dispelled after the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.

This tragedy exposed the true face of American ‘diplomacy’ as a duplicitous front for pursuing predetermined geopolitical ends. The war wasn’t so much about a ‘humanitarian intervention’ (the reality surrounding which was grossly exaggerated by the Western media) as it was the establishment of a pro-Western proxy state in the heart of the Southern Balkans.

The War on Yugoslavia also marked a turning point where the US began ramping up its aggression all across Eurasia and perfecting the first actual version of Hybrid Warfare.

Uncle Sam’s Sins

The US did a lot of horrible things during its War on Yugoslavia, but here’s three of the most audacious:

Supporting Terrorism:

The so-called ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’ (KLA), the armed wing of Albanian nationalists fighting in the Serbian province of Kosovo, was deemed a terrorist organization by the Yugoslav authorities. UNSC Resolution 1160, which was supported by the US, even condemned the group for its terrorist activity and urged it to immediately halt such actions. Be that as it may, the KLA served an decisive role in destabilizing Serbia, and was thus not only supported by the US throughout the conflict, but its leader Hashim Thaci was even recognized by Washington as the province’s ‘Prime Minister’ afterwards.

Lying to the World:

The US tried to convince the world that the Albanians in Kosovo were experiencing genocide at the hands of the Serbs, but this was nowhere near the reality on the ground. Although some Albanians were certainly killed during their violent uprising against the federal government, Serbs were too, and neither demographic experienced the ‘tens of thousands’ of deaths that the State Department evoked as the US’ excuse for bombing Yugoslavia.

Tens of thousands of more people have died during Mexico’s drug war in recent years, for example, but America’s southern neighbor has yet to experience a ‘humanitarian intervention’.

Bombing Civilian Infrastructure:

The US-led NATO bombing campaign killed hundreds of civilians and destroyed apartment buildings, farms, schools, hospitals, churches, and bridges. The Pentagon’s explanation for such horrors (when it chose to address them) was that its ‘precision-targeted munitions’ malfunctioned, but the surviving victims refused to believe this.

BONUS: Bombing China And Getting Away With It:

The US hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (officially recognized as the sovereign territory of the country, as is any state’s embassy abroad) on 7 May, 1999, killing 3 people and injuring about 20 others. One need only imagine the militant response from the Pentagon if the shoe was on the other foot.

The Foreign Policy Toolkit

The War on Yugoslavia represented the first testing ground for the application of the US’ integrated regime change strategy, however sloppily applied. It combined the following characteristics that would later be developed and perfected in forthcoming conflicts:

Unconventional War:

In order to stir up chaos and create a pretext for an ultimatum and eventual military intervention, the US supported the KLA during its terrorist war in the Serbian Province of Kosovo.

Ultimatum:

The US gave President Milosevic the ultimatum to pull all Yugoslavian police and army forces out of Kosovo Province or face the pulverizing consequences.

Conventional Intervention:

The destabilization came to a dramatic climax when NATO launched its ‘humanitarian intervention’ against Yugoslavia, which ultimately led to its fragmentation and destruction.

Color Revolution:

American intelligence services and Gene Sharp’s teachings organized and directed the Bulldozer Revolution of October 2000, which has since been acknowledged as the first Color Revolution.

Nowadays, the methods above have been perfected and patterned in the following order:

1. Ultimatum:

The US gives an explicit/public or implicit/behind-the-scenes ultimatum to a targeted country or leader. If they refuse and a ‘palace coup’ can’t be pulled off, then the next step is initiated.

2. Color Revolution:

This ‘street coup’ attempt seeks to oust the targeted country’s leadership through the carefully constructed façade of ‘people’s power’, whereby the international media is fed the misleading impression that the majority of a country’s citizens are revolting against their government. Other than the ultimatum or conventional coup, it’s the most cost-effective tool for regime change.

3. Unconventional War:

The third step can be evoked in the midst of the second one before turning into its own full-fledged destabilization when the Color Revolution fails. It capitalizes off of some of the social infrastructure built during the street coup attempt, and then arms the participants and encourages them to commit to terrorism and insurgency in overthrowing their government. Foreign mercenaries can also be involved.

4. Conventional Intervention:

While the previous two steps typically involve a deep level of covert commitment, the final step purposely brings the external destabilizer’s actions into the open by initiating an open war. This is the most expensive form of regime change, but is always clothed in grand ‘humanitarian’ or ‘democratic’ rhetoric to hide its true intent.

Where Are They Now?

Let’s take a look at the most notable example of each stage of the US’ regime change template and see how these countries have since coped with the Hybrid War waged against them:

Steps 1-2: Ukraine

The implicit ultimatum against President Yanukovych was that he had to sign the EU Association Agreement, and when he delayed doing so at the last minute, a Color Revolution was unleashed against him. In some ways, the urban terrorism of EuroMaidan even fulfills the requirements for Step 3.

Nowadays, the country lies in ruin and bankruptcy, and the oligarchs (Poroshenko and Kolomoiskyi) are poised to fight a fratricidal war amongst themselves at the expense of more Ukrainian lives.

Steps 1-3: Syria

President Assad refused to allow a gas pipeline from pro-American Qatar to transit Syrian territory en route to the Mediterranean, preferring instead to opt for the Friendship Pipeline with Iraq and Iran. As a punishment, Syria was thus dragged into the theater-wide ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions spearheaded by the US, but when the people resolutely stood by their democratically elected leadership and secular authorities and refused to allow the street coup to succeed, an Unconventional War was unleashed on the country.

As it stands, the most notorious terrorists from every corner of the world have infested the country, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people and turning entire cities to rubble in their four-year-long rampage.

Steps 1-4: Libya

Muammar Gaddafi refused to fully integrate his country into the EU-led ‘Union For the Mediterranean’, instead choosing to remain an observer member. Despite having surrendered Libya’s weapons of mass destruction during an earlier ultimatum in 2007, Gaddafi’s reluctance to move forward with Euro-Mediterranean integration made him a marked man.

The US-organized ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions subsequently targeted him in 2011, and events in the country quickly spiraled into Unconventional Warfare as terrorists surged into the main cities and started killing civilians and government representatives.

NATO decided to commence a bombing campaign against the country shortly thereafter under a false ‘humanitarian intervention’ pretext, which consequently destroyed the state’s social and physical infrastructure and turned it into the fearsome terrorist battleground that it is today.

Remember, these above-cited tragedies would not have been possible had it not been for the US’ War on Yugoslavia and the ‘perfection’ of the regime change techniques that were first applied there. It is for this reason that the memory of 24 March should serve as a somber reminder each year of the lethality of American ‘diplomacy’ and the uncountable costs that can be incurred from resisting Washington’s will.

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20150324/1019950056.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-yugoslavia-the-real-face-of-american-diplomacy/5438961

NATO’s Vershbow says EU-NATO “deeper cooperation” needed to fight Russia — a merger perhaps?

The Deputy Secretary General noted that while NATO-EU cooperation has intensified in recent years, “the logic of closer cooperation between NATO and the EU is more compelling than ever before.” He added that the two organisations should “further coordinate our approaches to counter hybrid warfare, dispel propaganda and misinformation, and defend our shared democratic values.”

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
March 5, 2015
Deputy Secretary General: NATO-EU cooperation is more important than ever

1119-eu-nato

NATO Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Alexander Vershbow has called for deeper cooperation between NATO and the European Union in the fight against new security threats. “We need to work together to manage crises, bring relief, and project stability beyond our borders,” he said. Ambassador Vershbow made his remarks in Riga, Latvia on Thursday (5 March 2015) in a speech to the Interparliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy. “This is a critical time for the security of all our nations,” Ambassador Vershbow said.

The Deputy Secretary General warned that the Euro-Atlantic community faces “new threats and challenges both on our eastern and our southern borders”. To the east, we see “an angry, revisionist Russia that breaks international rules” and continues to destabilise Ukraine and intimidate its neighbours, he said. Meanwhile, to the south, across the Middle East and North Africa, “ISIL’s violent ideology has poured oil on the fire of extremism and sectarianism”. Ambassador Vershbow noted that migrants fleeing turmoil have placed strain on countries like Italy and Turkey, and that violent ideologies have inspired terrorism on the streets of Europe.

The Deputy Secretary General stressed that NATO and its partners must also be ready to counter hybrid warfare, which combines military intimidation, economic and diplomatic duplicity, and media manipulation. Ambassador Vershbow noted that hybrid warfare has been “central to the Russian strategy” in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. He underlined that any response to hybrid threats should be “multi-faceted”, leveraging the complementary hard and soft power tools of NATO and the European Union.

Ambassador Vershbow also pointed to other areas ripe for deepened cooperation between NATO and the European Union, including support for partners like Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova; as well as for nations to the south. “There is a key role for the European Union to help these countries with political and economic reforms, to build strong institutions, and to fight corruption,” he said.

The Deputy Secretary General noted that while NATO-EU cooperation has intensified in recent years, “the logic of closer cooperation between NATO and the EU is more compelling than ever before.” He added that the two organisations should “further coordinate our approaches to counter hybrid warfare, dispel propaganda and misinformation, and defend our shared democratic values.”

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/real-nato-boss-nato-eu-merger-needed-for-war-with-Russia/
Real NATO Boss: NATO-EU Merger Needed For War With Russia

Top Army commander in Europe wants U.S. tanks In Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania

Ukrinform
March 6, 2015
Putin wants to destroy NATO – General Hodges

IA receives last shipment of GoI-purchased tanks
U.S. Abrams tanks

KYIV: Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to destroy NATO.

This was announced by Commander of the U.S. army in Europe, Lieutenant-General Frederick “Ben” Hodges, the Yevropeiska Pravda online newspaper reported with reference to an article published by The Telegraph.

“I’m sure Putin wants to destroy our alliance, not by attacking it, but by splintering it,” he said.

Hodges also said that Russia may try to destabilize one of the NATO member states by using “rebels” as in eastern Ukraine, or other forms of “hybrid warfare.” He also proposed positioning some of U.S. tanks in the countries located along the eastern flank of NATO to make it a limiting factor for Putin. In particular, he said, these are Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

 

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/top-army-commander-in-europe-wants-u-s-tanks-in-bulgaria-estonia-latvia-lithuania-poland-Romania/