NATO

“Geschichtsvergessend“: Deutsche Politiker zur Nato-Aufrüstung an russischer Grenze

Posted by

0

Sputnik Deutschland

15:28 30.04.2016
Zum Kurzlink
 
Die Meldung über eine mögliche Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten nach Litauen zur „Eindämmung“ Russlands hat in den Medien und den sozialen Netzwerken in Deutschland für großes Aufsehen gesorgt.

Dabei gehen die Meinungen oft weit auseinander. Aus Sicht der „Süddeutschen Zeitung“ steht Berlin vor einem Dilemma. Wenn Deutschland die Entsendung der Truppen verweigern würde, wäre das unsolidarisch gegenüber den baltischen Staaten. Sollte es einwilligen, würde das die Beziehungen zu Russland belasten. Der Deutschlandfunk gibt diesen Plänen allerdings recht: Die Nato müsse die „territoriale Integrität der Länder garantieren“, die sich in der Nähe Russland „unsicher“ fühlen.

Doch diese Begründung, die Staaten fühlten sich durch Russland bedroht, hält der Linken-Politiker Gregor Gysi für wenig überzeugend. „Erstens geht es nicht um Gefühle, sondern um die Frage, ob eine wirkliche Bedrohung vorliegt. Zweitens wären diese 250 Soldaten im Falles eines wirklichen Krieges mehr als überflüssig“, so Gysi auf seiner Facebook-Seite. Um seinen Gesichtspunkt noch deutlicher zu machen, erinnert der Politiker an die Geschichte: „Deshalb ist es geschichtsvergessen und eskalierend, jetzt Truppen an die russische Grenze zu schicken.“

https://www.facebook.com/gregor.gysi/?ref=nf

Die Bundestagsabgeordnete Sahra Wagenknecht unterstützt ihren Parteigenossen: „Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel begeht eine unverantwortliche Provokation, wenn sie 75 Jahre nach dem Überfall Deutschlands auf die Sowjetunion die Bundeswehr zur russischen Grenze schickt.“

In den Kommentaren im Internet haben viele Leser ihrem Unmut über das Vorhaben der Bundesregierung Luft gemacht. „Die Grenze nach Afrika / Türkei / Syrien ist offen, aber die Gefahr kommt aus Russland. Einfach nur verrückt“, schrieb ein Nutzer in den Kommentaren zu einem „Welt“-Artikel. Ein anderer Leser, J89, wies darauf hin, dass ein Nato-Bataillon an der Grenze zu Russland keine beachtenswerte Gefahr darstelle: Das sei „Symbolpolitik“.

Auch andere Internet-Nutzer sind von der Aussicht, deutsche Soldaten in Richtung Russland zu schicken, wenig begeistert:

 https://twitter.com/heiko_faf

https://twitter.com/SPIEGEL_EIL

https://twitter.com/DaKrau

http://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20160430/309580720/deutsche-politiker-zur-nato-aufruestung-an-russischer-grenze.html?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FmRddb0wiY8&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=bhV9&utm_campaign=URL_shortening

PRESSEMITTEILUNG: Neue Friedenspolitik statt NATO-Aggression — Sahra Wagenknecht

Posted by

0

DIE LINKE

PRESSEMITTEILUNG

29.04.2016 – SAHRA WAGENKNECHT

Neue Friedenspolitik statt NATO-Aggression

„Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel begeht eine unverantwortliche Provokation, wenn sie 75 Jahre nach dem Überfall Deutschlands auf die Sowjetunion die Bundeswehr zur russischen Grenze schickt“, erklärt Sahra Wagenknecht, Vorsitzende der Fraktion DIE LINKE. Wagenknecht weiter:

„Die Bundesregierung handelt brandgefährlich, wenn sie das aggressive Spiel der NATO blind unterstützt. Eine dauerhafte Präsenz von NATO-Kampftruppen an der russischen Grenze widerspricht den bestehenden Vereinbarungen mit Russland. EU-Osterweiterungen und NATO-Truppenaufmärsche sind Gift für Frieden und Stabilität in Europa. Die Entsendung von Kampfeinheiten der Bundeswehr an die russische Grenze gefährdet die vitalen Interessen der deutschen Bevölkerung. Der Deutsche Bundestag muss darüber beraten.“

http://www.linksfraktion.de/pressemitteilungen/neue-friedenspolitik-statt-nato-aggression/

Wagenknecht calls for new peace policy instead of NATO’s ‘aggressive game’; press release on sending Bundeswehr troops to the Russian border

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

Die LINKE [The Left Party]
April 29, 2016
Translated from German by Tom Winter April 30, 2016

New peace policy instead of NATO aggression

“Chancellor Angela Merkel is committing an irresponsible provocation, when, 75 years after the attack on the Soviet Union, she is sending the Bundeswehr to the Russian border,” said Sahra Wagenknecht, Chairman of DIE LINKE.

Wagenknecht further: “The federal government is playing with fire if they blindly support NATO’s aggressive game. A permanent presence of NATO combat troops on the Russian border is contrary to the existing agreements with Russia.

EU eastward expansion and the NATO troop parades are poison for peace and stability in Europe. The deployment of combat units of the Bundeswehr to the Russian border threatens the vital interests of the German population. The German Bundestag must debate it.”
_____________________________
On the same subject, click “Forgetting History”

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/04/wagenknecht-press-release-on-sending.html

Obama requests EU support for possible war against Russia

Posted by

0

Washington and NATO governments lose patience at Russia and Syria wins in the public polls. The West pushes to achieve their ends by any means possible, and they will do it over the public’s dead bodies, if need be. Despite the high-sounding patriotic rhetoric, their ends were never for the public. Those who believe the fear-mongering and the lies are fools. Those driving Western federal policies and in the Pentagon and military establishment are truly mad.

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, April 24, 2016

According to Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (German Economic News), on April 23rd, U.S. President Barack Obama is “demanding the active deployment of the Bundeswehr [Germany’s armed forces, including their Army, Navy, and Air Force] to NATO’s eastern borders” at Poland and the Baltic republics, to join the quadrupling of America’s forces there, on and near those borders of Russia. (This is an extreme violation of what Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to when he ended the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirror organization the Warsaw Pact, but it’s actually culminating a process that began shortly after he agreed to America’s terms, which included that NATO “not move one inch to the east.”)

Furthermore, DWN reports that on April 25th, the U.S. President will hold a “summit meeting” in Hannover Germany with the leaders of Germany (Angela Merkel), Italy (Matteo Renzi), France (Francois Hollande), and Britain (David Cameron). The presumed objective of this meeting is to establish in NATO’s countries bordering on Russia, a military force of all five countries that are headed by these leaders, a force threatening Russia with an invasion, if NATO subsequently decides that the ‘threat from Russia’ be ‘responded to’ militarily.

NATO’s surrounding Russia with hostile forces is supposedly defensive against Russia — not an offensive operation. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, America’s President JFK didn’t consider Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev’s plan to base nuclear missiles in Cuba to be ‘defensive’ on the USSR’s part — and neither does Russia’s President Vladimir Putin consider America’s far bigger operation, of surrounding Russia with such weapons, to be ‘defensive’ and not offensive. The U.S. Government, and NATO, act as if Russia is surrounding them, instead of them surrounding Russia — and their ‘news’ media transmit this lie as if it should be taken seriously, not as its being a lie; but, in actual fact, NATO has already expanded right up to Russia’s western borders.

Obama is thus now adding to the economic sanctions against Russia that he had imposed allegedly because of Russia’s alleged ‘seizure’ of Crimea from Ukraine after Obama’s coup overthrew Russia’s ally Viktor Yanukovych who led Ukraine until the coup in February 2014.

Right after Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, Obama slapped sanctions against Russia (even though Western-sponsored polls in Crimea, both before and after the coup, had shown higher than 90% support by Crimeans for rejoining with Russia), and nuclear weapons were prepared, both on the U.S.-EU side and on the Russian side, for a possible nuclear war.

This is no mere restoration of the Cold War (which was based upon the capitalist-communist ideological disagreement); it’s instead getting forces into position for a possible invasion of Russia, pure-and-simple — raw conquest — though no major news-media in the West are reporting it as beingsuch.

That preparation doesn’t necessarily mean a nuclear war will result. Russia might accept whatever the demands of ‘the West’ are, and thus lose its national sovereignty. Otherwise, ‘the West’ (the U.S.leadership, and the leaderships in its allied countries) might quit their evermore-ominous threats, and simply withdraw from Russia’s borders, if Russia stands-its-ground and refuses to yield up its national sovereignty.

Basically, the U.S. leadership decided to take over Ukraine, and refused to acknowledge the rights of the Crimean people to reject being conquered by the U.S. — and Russia’s leadership decided toprotect them against the type of invasion that subsequently occurred in Ukraine’s former Donbass region, where the opposition to Obama’s coup was even more intense.

Supposedly, ‘the West’ is asserting that Russia is somehow in the wrong here; but, since even the head of Stratfor has called what Obama did in Ukraine “the most blatant coup in history”, and since the fact that it was a U.S. coup has been documented extensively on cellphone and other videos, and inthe most thorough academic investigation that has been performed of the matter — and was even acknowledged by Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko, a participant in the coup, to havebeen a coup — and since evidence survives on the Internet of the U.S. Embassy’s preparations as early as 1 March 2013for the February 2014 coup; and since even the U.S. government’s hired polls showed that Crimeans rejected overwhelmingly the U.S. coup and supported rejoining Russia; the question still needs to be answered: What basis of ‘the West’s’ aggressive actions threatening Russia’s national security is there, other than such lies by the West, against Russia’s President? And, that’s a very worrisome basis — worrisome regarding, essentially, dictatorship in ‘the West’, rather than regardingany dictatorship outside ‘the West’. The dictatorship here seems clearly to be coming from the West,against the East.

Back in January, Russian President Vladimir Putin called-out American President Barack Obama on Obama’s big lie, that America’s “ABM” weapons to disable in-flight nuclear missiles were being installed in Europe in order to protect Europe against Iranian nuclear missiles, but now the U.S. acknowledges that Iran doesn’t have, and won’t have, any nuclear missiles, and yet Obama is stepping up (instead of ending) those ABM installations — even though the alleged anti-Iranian reason for them is gone. The only actual reason they have been installed, Putin argues, is in order to enable a blitz nuclear attack against Russia, which will include disabling Russia’s retaliatory capacity.

Any in-depth news-report about Obama’s organizing for a possible invasion of Russia, needs to deal, therefore, with the key question: What basis of ‘the West’s’ aggressive actions threatening Russia’s national security is there, other than such lies by ‘the West’? And, if there is no honest answer to it, then the only rational response by Western publics, to what Obama and his foreign allies are doing, is to recognize what is actually happening and to take action against their own leaders, before this increasingly high-stakes confrontation — of no benefit but only extremely high costs, to publics around the world — becomes terminal. In that instance, Western publics need to defend themselves against their own nation’s leaders. This is a situation that is frequently encountered in dictatorships.

The key questions are not being asked in the Western press; they are being ignored by it. Unless these questions are publicly dealt with — and soon — the answer, to them all, could well be terminal. Consequently, any ‘news’ medium that fails to address them is less than worthless; it is sheer propaganda that merely parades in the mask of being a ‘news medium’: the potentially terminal questions are then being ignored, and lies are promoted instead, which distract the public from the most urgent public-affairs issue of them all, in our era, not draw the public’s attention to that overriding international-affairs issue.

The closer that things are getting to a nuclear war, the more difficult becomes either side’s backing down from it — and this is especially the case with the aggressor (most especially when it falsely claims that it is being aggressed-against, and this is the reason why the lies urgently need to be exposed).

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.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-requests-eu-support-for-possible-war-against-russia/5521560

 

Humvee leads unmarked convoy of military equipment rolling across Germany

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

“US military Humvee on the A4 near Dresden. No markings at all”
License plate? Unit markings? Who needs them?

German RT February 22, 2016

Translated from German by Tom Winter

Eyewitness to German RT: Military column of about 50 unmarked heavy trucks under way near Dresden

A motorist traveling on business on the A4 towards Görlitz has turned to RT to report that he had spotted a military convoy February 20, consisting of 50 trucks, all covered with tarpaulins and without any military badges. 

According to his statements, the tires of military transport vehicles were pressed, indicating heavy loading. At the same time, the US Army has announced that it is providing 5000 tons of ammunition to Germany in February.

The eyewitness, who turned to German RT and reported his observation with documenting photographs, introduced himself as a former NVA officer and was noticeably distressed when talking to RT:
“I am contacting you because I am afraid for the future of my children, I have two sons of military service age, and when I watch a NATO transport of this scale in eastern Germany, it makes me enormously worried.”

He also stressed that he in contrast to the “ongoing campaign against Russia,” his circle of acquaintances rather have an attitude of friendship towards Russia.

The fact that the lead vehicle is a Humvee points to the US Army. However, it is uncommon for US military transport to drive without any form of identification across German territory.

One motivation for the complete absence of any military badging could may lie in circumventing Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Two Plus Four Treaty. This Article provides, “that foreign military forces and atomic weapons or their carriers, can not be stationed nor conveyed in this part of Germany” (the five new federal states)

The observation of the eye-witness, whose name and contact information we have at German RT, and that he, for understandable cause does not want published, coincides with the statement of US Army-Europe of February 20:
“In the largest single supply of ammunition of the decade, the 21st Logistics Command has delivered more than 5,000 tons of ammunition to the ‘European ammunition depot’ in Miesau [Germany] between 17-18 February.”

Thus the announcement on the official website of the US Army. The Chief of Staff of the US Logistics Command, Colonel Matthew Redding, continues in a presser:
“This vital supply will help us continue to support the NATO alliance. The fact that this is the largest single delivery of the last decade, demonstrates our undiminished commitment to the defense of our allies.”

Redding explained also that the storage of such a large amount of ammunition will allow the US and NATO “to provide ammunition for NATO operations on very short notice.” The Chief of Staff concluded by saying: “All these efforts pay off, if it comes to units needing ammunition right now, and we are able to deliver immediately” The ammunition was loaded in a total of 415 shipping containers and initially stored in Rhineland-Palatinate Miesau. The US military maintains near Miesau (“Miesau Am Panzergraben”*) the Miesau Army Depot, the largest ammunition depot outside the United States and the largest in Germany.

Ammunition should be available, among other things, for the upcoming 2016 NATO-United maneuvers “Anaconda” scheduled for June.

‘”Road to ANACONDA” Preparations base for the grand NATO manoeuvres in Poland for June, 2016’  Photo credit: US-Army Europe

At the military exercise over 25,000 soldiers from 24 countries will take part, including the USA, Germany, Great Britain, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Hungary, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. Since the merger by referendum of Crimea with Russia in 2014, NATO has greatly expanded its military maneuver activities in Europe. The biggest NATO exercises in 2015, called “Trident Juncture,” included 36,000 soldiers, 60 warships and 200 warplanes from 30 different countries. Moscow has repeatedly asked NATO to stop its expansion into Eastern Europe as once agreed and has repeatedly stressed that such steps have the potential to undermine the security of all of Europe.
______________________
*The name of a German town is often specified by naming the river alongside it, i.e. “Aldingen Am Neckar,” Aldingen-on-the-Neckar. Here it is Miesau, humorously called “Miesau on the tank graveyard.”

The crimes of NATO and the United States

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
30th January, 2016

Today, Ratko Mladić, Radovan Karadžić and Vojislav Šešelj are in the Hague prison. “The most fair court in the world” – the Hague – accused the former leader and former military leader of the army of Republika Srpska, for crimes against humanity and called them “the most bloody dictators of the late twentieth century”. However, the European Themis has obvious problems with memory, eyesight and hearing. Because, how does one explain that those responsible for the death of millions of people are not sat next to the “Serbian criminals”? Namely, the top leadership of NATO, who have unleashed over the last 20 years, several bloody conflicts, which they diplomatically called “peacekeeper wars”.
Afghanistan, 2011 – The victim of a mistaken NATO airstrike 
This section being dedicated not only to NATO crimes but also the United States of America is not accidental. Being one of the founding members of a military bloc and its main driving force, as well as having their representatives as the leaders of majority committees to the headquarters of NATO, the US often acts as a main initiator of the military operations.
STATISTICS FOR NATO’S “PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS”
Yugoslavia
  • Dead – 5,700 people, including 400 children
  • Wounded – nearly 7,000 civilians, 30% of them children
  • Missing – 821 people
  • Excess mortality as a result of deterioration of conditions of existence not estimated
Afghanistan
  • Dead – 35,000 people
  • Refugees – 500,000 people
  • As well as the aggravation of inter-ethnic conflicts, terrorist attacks, increased drug trafficking
Iraq
  • During the war in Iraq over 1 million Iraqis were killed – this is a greatest loss in modern history. A quarter of them women and children.
  • During the operation, NATO forces used forbidden weapons, namely white phosphorus.
Libya
  • Killed more than 20,000 people (military and civilians)
  • Refugees – more than 350,000 people
In August 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed that the actions of the aviation of NATO forces in Libya caused no civilian casualties.
Libya, 2011 – Doctors help child who suffered from wounds in the besieged Libyan city of Misrata
LIST OF NATO’S CRIMES
1. DECEIVING THE WORLD COMMUNITY
Someone wise once said, “Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose lying as his principle”. The US alone, or via the use of NATO forces, have started all military conflicts with deception, distorting the true reasons of the start of hostilities.
Vietnam
The incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 may serve as the beginning of the great American fraud, which unleashed the bloody campaign of Vietnam, which began due to the fact that North Vietnamese speedboats, allegedly, attacked the United States fleet. After 40 years, the U.S. government declassified archival military documents from which it became clear that the cause of the beginning of the Vietnam campaign was shamelessly fabricated (mywebs.su/blog/1310.html). Following the Tonkin incident, the bombing of settlements in Vietnam resulted in thousands of victims among the civilian population.
Vietnam, 1 January 1966 – Women and children hide in a ditch from the intense shelling 
The countries of former Yugoslavia
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Alliance began to feverishly look for a reason for their continued existence. The main one was the so-called “peacekeeping mission” when NATO entered in the resolution of ethnic conflicts, pursuing purely personal goals (especially the extension of their influence). As, for example, in the Balkans, when they invaded the region, and directly participated in the escalation of ethnic wars.
The military action of NATO against the former Republic of Yugoslavia, marking the beginning of the modern operations unit, is an example of flagrant violations of all norms and legislation, including the Organization of the North Atlantic Alliance (beta-press.ru/article/34). First of all, NATO violated its own Charter, the Washington Treaty, the 1st article of which stipulates that members of the Alliance must “settle all international disputes in which they may be involved in by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace, security and justice, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. The 6th article of the Treaty was also grossly violated, which states that the competence of NATO is limited to the territory of member countries of the Alliance, and Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia were not members of NATO. What can we say about the 7th article of the Washington Treaty, which clearly stipulates that the Alliance recognizes “the responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security” (nato.int/cps/ru/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm).
American TIME magazine on September 11, 1995 was published under the title “Bringing the Serbs to heel. Massive bombing opens the door to peace”
NATO’s aggression against the former Yugoslavia almost negated all UN peacekeeping missions. The main reason for the invasion of the bloc in the Balkan country became its steadfast refusal to the ultimatum of NATO to concede its territory to the military forces of the Alliance. The condition of the Alliance meant nothing other than hard intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and a threat to its territorial integrity. All of these actions violated the 1st article of the UN Resolution of 1974: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a state (group of States) against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition” (politics.ru/articles/database/global/pravoviie_dokumentii/rezoliutsiia_generalnoij_assamblei_oon_%C2%ABopredelen.shtml).
The best thing about the crimes of the U.S. and NATO in Yugoslavia was, the once the best friend of the West, dissident and human rights activist Alexander Solzhenitsyn, comparing the actions of the Alliance with Nazi crimes: “The worst thing that is happening today is not even the bombing of Serbia, while it is difficult to pronounce, – the most terrible thing is that NATO has transferred us into a new era. Just as Hitler once was, playing another adventures, withdrawing Germany from the League of Nations… USA and NATO removed the UN system of collective security, the recognition of the sovereignty of states. They started a new era: who ever is stronger, will crush. It’s scary…” (aif.ru/politics/article/comments/53043).
Iraq
The U.S invaded Iraq under the pretext of the presence of weapons of mass destruction, namely bacteriological (anthrax) (newsru.com/world/05feb2003/powellun.html). An additional reason was already familiar by that point – the fight for democracy. “Democratization” of Iraq has cost the lives of a million civilians (excluding losses for the military). “The dictator” Hussein was publicly executed, and weapons of mass destruction, which allegedly threatened the world, were never found. Later, in 2004, the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted the published data, which marked the beginning of a bloody war, were, to put it mildly, “inaccurate” or simply falsified. “When I did a report in February 2003, it was based on the best information which was provided by the CIA. Unfortunately, over time, it became clear that the sources were inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. I’m deeply disappointed and I regret it” – Powell told the press (aif.ru/politics/article/comments/53043). He is sorry.
Iraq, 2003 – A father carries his mutilated, dead daughter after NATO’s bombing 
2. THE USE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS
Vietnam
They used Napalm bombs – a weapon that is an incendiary, flamethrower mixture. As gelled gasoline, Napalm literally burnt them alive. Later, in 1980, the UN adopted the Convention on the prohibition of certain types of weapons, the 3rd Protocol would read that the use of incendiary weapons, including Napalm, against civilians is a crime. But during the Vietnam war these bombs had already killed and affected hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.
8 June 1972 –  9 year-old Kim Phuc (center) flees from a Napalm bombing on the highway near Trang Bang. This photo went around the world and raised a storm of protest against the criminal policy of the USA in Vietnam
The countries of former Yugoslavia
In military operations against that country, NATO used weapons that were banned by the Nuremberg Charter and Geneva and Hague conventions. Firstly, in Yugoslavia, shells with a low concentration of uranium were used. This kind of weapon is not only highly accurate, but radioactive and highly toxic, and is dangerous to humans and the environment. Secondly, NATO used so-called cluster bombs – weapons of indirect fire, explosive projectiles, prohibited from the later “Ottawa process minefield” (icbl.org/intro.php). The peculiarity of this weapon is that the explosion occurs only in 50% of cases. Other bombs can lie for years in the ground, activating only in case of accidental contact.
Iraq
The Iraqi venture was marked by a number of high-profile crimes of the Alliance. Torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison stirred up the whole world…
Iraq, 2004 – Americans are photographed in the background of a dumped pile of naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib 
There was violence against civilians (murder, rape, robbery). And, of course, the use of one of the most dreaded types of incendiary chemical weapons, white phosphorus, (during the battle for Nasiriyah in April 2003, as well as the assaults on Fallujah in April and November 2004). This type of weapon, which burns the body and dissolves the flesh to the bone, was banned by the UN Convention on certain weapons in 1980, but the US never ratified it.
Photos of casualties from the use of white phosphorus we will not publish, because it is indeed a very scary sight.
Libya
There is information, which the leadership of NATO stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, that during the conflict in Libya, the military also used cluster bombs and white phosphorus, as was the case during the operations in Yugoslavia and Iraq (oko-planet.su/fail/failvideo/videoweapon/86827-nato-ispolzovalo-klasternye-bomby-v-livii-hotya-otricaet-eto-smotrite-sami.html). Also there is a possibility that NATO dumped uranium dust – a radioactive substance, banned by UN Convention, on Iraqi facilities (voltairenet.org/Voennye-prestupleniya-NATO-uchenye). Finally, many sources claim that in Libya, NATO used mustard gas in combat, a toxic substance “tested” during the years of World wars, and prohibited under various conventions as it is extremely dangerous (newsland.ru/news/detail/id/778279).
3. THE ARMS RACE
One of the main NATO crimes is pulling the world into a new arms race era. NATO is not only placing missile defense systems on the European continent, but also heavily increasing its nuclear capabilities. By the way, the official military doctrine of the Alliance recognizes the right to use nuclear weapons – the kind of weapons banned in 1996 by the world court (beta-press.ru/print.php?id=34), because it can lead to the destruction of humanity. Today, if we add up full military potential of the country-members of the bloc, NATO has 60% of the world’s nuclear arsenal.
The countries of the Alliance from year to year are increasing their military capabilities under the pretext: to “force protection, mobility, and high efficiency” (beta-press.ru/print.php?id=34). They spend huge money on it. For example, the military budget of the EU is about 11%. The spending for defense in the USA and Canada is growing. In the conditions of crisis, this money could go to peaceful humanitarian purposes, who preach to the West for medical services and education, on the development of social policies and environmental protection. But NATO needs a strong army to establish fully and definitively their hegemony in the world.
WHY DOES NATO START MILITARY CONFLICTS?
Americans themselves like to say that they are people of practical storage. They, like anyone else, know how to count money. And like all of history, humanity has fought over resources – be it gold, timber, or oil, and today, Americans aim to establish their influence in all strategically important regions of the planet. Petroleum countries have recently found problems with democracy and their mandatory dictator leader. It is in these countries that NATO tries to dominate, with the help of the world community, or by simply ignoring their opinion. As they say, morality in business is the concept of losing. So was Iraq and so was Libya. And in turn – Damascus.
The Expert Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, characterizes the current policy of the NATO countries – a priori cannot be a guarantor of stability and security in the world: “For example, Europe has officially announced that one of the main objectives of its policy – the access of European companies to the African market and resources. At any cost! It, above all, affects the interests of China, who, incidentally, are assessing the situation in the Middle East, having serious levers of pressure on Europe, and have not yet said their weighty word. This concerns Russia: in Guinea, the Europeans are already trying to remove RUSAL, “LUKOIL” from Côte d’Ivoire… And in the battle for Africa, the Europeans need to turn the Mediterranean sea into a “NATO Lake”. To solve this problem, Syria could become another Algeria (newsland.ru/news/detail/id/984811/).
So NATO, in this business scheme, is just a means to achieve the goal.

Gaddafi’s daughter Ayesha: New leader of resistance against NATO and Libyan terrorists

Posted by

0

By Maja Orlic
Global Research, February 02, 2016
South Front 1 February 2016
ajsa-gadafi
Ayesha to her people: I will avenge my father, brothers, a husband and Libya!

She is back! The daughter of Muammar Gaddafi will lead the resistance against NATO and the other Libyan terrorists. Ayesha stated that she is now the leader of the resistance and she is about to create a new secret government.

Ayesha Gaddafi [pictured above] becomes the new leader of the resistance at a crucial moment for the country – on the eve of the new NATO intervention. As a Lieutenant General of the Libyan army she swore loyalty to order her legendary father and urged Libyans to wake up in order to win, to be successful and to “return the Jamahiriya government”.

Ayesha Gaddafi guarantees that in the next few months she will form a “secret government” of “famous Libyans,” who are loyal to Gaddafi and that will act as a mediator in Libya and abroad. Analyzing the current situation she criticized the former army because of “a crazy mix of anarchists” who decided to wage war on a principle “I fight for whoever pays me more.”

Gaddafi´s daughter accused them of using a green flag of Jamahiriya and recruiting their supporters, as well as strengthening tribal governments, under whose shadow they joined the alliance with the Tuareg and Toubou Islamists. She accused the Tuareg and Toubou tribes of separatism and conspiracy with the government in Tobruk.

Ayesha Gaddafi called on the soldiers of the Libyan armed forces to give her the oath as a Supreme Commander, in order to restore the state.

“My name gives me a duty and a right to be at the forefront of this battle.”, said a brave woman who during the war lost her husband and two children. Today she is ready to become a “symbol of the nation” and alongside a portrait of Gaddafi to become a “symbol of the mission to restore national unity.” Speaking of the Libyans as for her children, she compared herself to a mother who will fight for their children.

She also talked about al-Qaeda terrorists, who overthrew her father Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Ayesha Gaddafi prophetically said that their destruction and death have a breath of madness and that it will fall apart and disappear. She wrote that “We are ready for a deadly battle” in which the terrorists will face one nation. In conclusion, she promised to sign a new agreement.

According to rumors, the printed version of this call is secretly being distributed and shared in the main cities of Libya – Tripoli and Tobruk. And according to given information we can also expect her speech on local television soon.

Originally published at in4s.net, translated by Mario Andrijasevic exclusively for SouthFront

The original source of this article is South Front
Copyright © Maja Orlic, South Front, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gaddafis-daughter-ayesha-new-leader-of-resistance-against-nato-and-libyan-terrorists/5505157

Russia waiting for explanation from NATO over shelling of Syrian territory from Turkey

Posted by

0

By ITAR-TASS
Global Research, February 02, 2016
TASS 1 February 2016

Russia has “irrefutable evidence” of Turkey shelling Syrian territory from large-caliber artillery

MOSCOW, February 1. /TASS/. Russian Defense Ministry is waiting for explanations from representatives of NATO and the Pentagon of the actions of Turkish military which the ministry accuses of shelling the Syrian territory, official spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Monday.

“Those who warn us about consequences without understanding what happened, should first of all think about the trap their Turkish partners are dragging them into,” Konashenkov said.

Russian Defense Ministry has ‘irrefutable evidence’ of Syria’s territory shelling by Turkish troops

According to Konashenkov, Turkish military shell Syria’s territory from large-caliber artillery, and Russia has “irrefutable evidence” of these cases.

Turkish army's armored vehicles and tanks drive in Syrian town of Kobani, Feb 22, 2015

Turkish army’s armored vehicles and tanks drive in Syrian town of Kobani, Feb 22, 2015
© AP Photo/Mursel Coban, Depo Photos

The general said Russia’s military have received footage provided by Syria’s General Staff that shows deployment of large-caliber self-propelled artillery weapons in one of near-border areas. The ministry also received a video from Syria’s opposition showing the shelling of Syria, he said.

“This is called a fact. This is irrefutable evidence that Turkey’s armed forces shell near-border Syrian settlements from large-caliber artillery systems,” Maj. Gen. Konashenkov said.

He showed the journalists a video that pictured a part of the Syrian-Turkish border. “This facility is a Turkish frontier post where several months ago there were no firing points,” he said.

Speaking on Ankara’s new allegations that Russia’s Su-34 bomber violated Turkey’s airspace last week, Konashenkov said: “Those who warn us about consequences without understanding what happened, should first of all think about the trap their Turkish partners are dragging them into.”

The original source of this article is TASS
Copyright © ITAR-TASS, TASS, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-waiting-for-explanation-from-nato-over-shelling-of-syrian-territory-from-turkey/5505059

Emails on Hillary Clinton’s rape of Libya reveal French government’s crimes; Where are the trials for Clinton and Sarkozy?

Posted by

0

“…an April 2011 email sent to Hillary with the subject line ‘France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold’ tells of less noble ambitions.The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind:

  • to obtain Libyan oil,
  • ensure French influence in the region,
  • increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically,
  • assert French military power, and to
  • prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered ‘Francophone Africa.’

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

[from the email]’… this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.'”

Hillary’s Dirty War in Libya: New Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold
By Brad Hoff
Global Research, January 05, 2016
Levant Report 4 January 2015

The New Year’s Eve release of over 3000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department has CNN abuzz over gossipy text messages, the “who gets to ride with Hillary” selection process set up by her staff, and how a “cute” Hillary photo fared on Facebook.

But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.

Hillary’s Death Squads

A March 27, 2011 intelligence brief on Libya, sent by long time close adviser to the Clintons and Hillary’s unofficial intelligence gatherer, Sidney Blumenthal, contains clear evidence of war crimes on the  part of NATO-backed rebels. Citing a rebel commander source “speaking in strict confidence” Blumenthal reports to Hillary [emphasis mine]:

Under attack from allied Air and Naval forces, the Libyan Army troops have begun to desert to the rebel side in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defections.

(Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…).

While the illegality of extra-judicial killings is easy to recognize (groups engaged in such are conventionally termed “death squads”), the sinister reality behind the “foreign mercenaries” reference might not be as immediately evident to most.

While over the decades Gaddafi was known to make use of European and other international security and infrastructural contractors, there is no evidence to suggest that these were targeted by the Libyan rebels.

There is however, ample documentation by journalists, academics, and human rights groups demonstrating that black Libyan civilians and sub-Saharan contract workers, a population favored by Gaddafi in his pro-African Union policies, were targets of “racial cleansing” by rebels who saw black Libyans as tied closely with the regime.[1]

Black Libyans were commonly branded as “foreign mercenaries” by the rebel opposition for their perceived general loyalty to Gaddafi as a community and subjected to torture, executions, and their towns “liberated” by ethnic cleansing. This is demonstrated in the most well-documented example of Tawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

These attacks were well-known as late as 2012 and often filmed, as this report from The Telegraph confirms:

After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, hundreds of migrant workers from neighboring states were imprisoned by fighters allied to the new interim authorities. They accuse the black Africans of having been mercenaries for the late ruler. Thousands of sub-Saharan Africans have been rounded up since Gaddafi fell in August.

It appears that Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

Al-Qaeda and Western Special Forces Inside Libya

The same intelligence email from Sydney Blumenthal also confirms what has become a well known theme of Western supported insurgencies in the Middle East: the contradiction of special forces training militias that are simultaneously suspected of links to Al Qaeda.

Blumenthal relates that “an extremely sensitive source” confirmed that British, French, and Egyptian special operations units were training Libyan militants along the Egyptian-Libyan border, as well as in Benghazi suburbs.

While analysts have long speculated as to the “when and where” of Western ground troop presence in the Libyan War, this email serves as definitive proof that special forces were on the ground only within a month of the earliest protests which broke out in the middle to end of February 2011 in Benghazi.

By March 27 of what was commonly assumed a simple “popular uprising” external special operatives were already “overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels” including “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.”

Yet only a few paragraphs after this admission, caution is voiced about the very militias these Western special forces were training because of concern that, “radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command.”

The Threat of Libya’s Oil and Gold to French Interests

Though the French-proposed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 claimed the no-fly zone implemented over Libya was to protect civilians, an April 2011 email sent to Hillary with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold” tells of less noble ambitions.

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.

French intelligence “discovered” a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression.

The Ease of Floating Crude Propaganda

Early in the Libyan conflict Secretary of State Clinton formally accused Gaddafi and his army of using mass rape as a tool of war. Though numerous international organizations, like Amnesty International, quickly debunked these claims, the charges were uncritically echoed by Western politicians and major media.

It seemed no matter how bizarre the conspiracy theory, as long as it painted Gaddafi and his supporters as monsters, and so long as it served the cause of prolonged military action in Libya, it was deemed credible by network news.

Two foremost examples are referenced in the latest batch of emails: the sensational claim that Gaddafi issued Viagra to his troops for mass rape, and the claim that bodies were “staged” by the Libyan government at NATO bombing sites to give the appearance of the Western coalition bombing civilians.

In a late March 2011 email, Blumenthal confesses to Hillary that,

I communicated more than a week ago on this story—Qaddafi placing bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result of Allied bombing—though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know, Robert Gates gives credence to it. (See story below.)

Sources now say, again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of a much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation.

Not only did Defense Secretary Robert Gates promote his bizarre “staged bodies” theory on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” but the even stranger Viagra rape fiction made international headlines as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice made a formal charge against Libya in front of the UN Security Council.

What this new email confirms is that not only was the State Department aware of the spurious nature of what Blumenthal calls “rumors” originating solely with the rebels, but did nothing to stop false information from rising to top officials who then gave them “credence.”

It appears, furthermore, that the Viagra mass rape hoax likely originated with Sidney Blumenthal himself.

 Note

[1] The most comprehensive and well-documented study of the plight of black Libyans is contained in Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa (publ. 2012, Baraka Books) byMaximilian Forte, Professor Anthropology and Sociology at Concordia University in Montréal, Québec.

The original source of this article is Levant Report
Copyright © Brad Hoff, Levant Report, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillarys-dirty-war-in-libya-new-emails-reveal-propaganda-executions-coveting-libyan-oil-and-gold/5499358

Russia’s new National Security strategy

Posted by

0

By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 01, 2016

Acting by decree, an updated national security strategy, has been implemented which fundamentally redefines US-Russia relations. 

It addresses significant threats Russia faces – notably US-led NATO encroaching on its borders, stating:

“The buildup of the military potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting it with global functions implemented in violations of norms of international law, boosting military activity of the bloc’s countries, further expansion of the alliance, the approach of its military infrastructure to Russian borders create a threat to the national security.”

It accused Washington and it allies of “seeking to keep up their domination in global affairs,” risking greater conflicts than already.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement, saying

“(t)he course NATO has assumed towards ‘deterring’ Russia, materialized as a buildup of military presence in countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, increase in the number and intensity of exercises close to the Russian border, necessitated measures to counter the threats that NATO creates for Russia’s national security.”

“The remaining channels of a political dialogue with NATO and bilateral contacts with the leadership of the key member countries of the organization have been used for the explanation of negative consequences and potential risks from changes to the existing configuration of forces in Europe.”

The Ministry noted the “confrontational nature of the Alliance’s decision to invite Montenegro to the start of talks on its accession to NATO, leading to a further fragmentation of the European security space, creation of new demarcation lines on the continent.”

Are plans to incorporate Ukraine next not yet revealed? Will US-led NATO divisions be deployed along Russia’s borders more than already? Pentagon tactical and strategic nuclear weapons target its heartland.

Are things heading recklessly toward direct confrontation? Russia’s warning against deploying nuclear weapons in Europe to avoid “dangerous consequences” went unheeded.

Former German Defense Ministry Parliamentary State Secretary Willy Wimmer called “new attack options against Russia a conscious provocation of our Russian neighbor.”

Despite Bundestag members overwhelmingly ruling for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany earlier, new ones are being deployed, sparking outrage in Russia.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called it “an infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

Putin responded to Washington’s provocative Eastern European expansion, saying Russia “will be forced to aim our armed forces…at those territories from where the  threat comes.”

“It is (US-led nuclear armed and dangerous) NATO that is moving towards our border, and we aren’t moving anywhere.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused Washington of “inciting tensions and carefully nurturing (its) European allies’ anti-Russian phobias (as a pretext for) expanding its military presence and influence in Europe” – threatening world peace.

Key US NATO allies Britain, France, Germany, Turkey and others march in lockstep with its aggressive anti-Russian policy. Its officials have just cause for concern.

Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin called NATO a “cancer tumor” in Europe. World peace depends on its “disband(ment).”

“This could be done in several stages,” he said. First “expel” America. Disbandment could “painlessly” follow – a vital step toward “strengthening security and stability on the European continent,” he stressed.

Russia’s updated national security strategy cited other significant threats – including internally or externally instigated color revolutions, a US specialty, threatening its sovereignty by undermining and destabilizing its political integrity.

US bioweapons threaten its security, the document saying its “network of…biological military labs is expanding on the territories of countries bordering Russia.”

Its “independent foreign and domestic policy has been met with counteraction by the US and its allies, seeking to maintain” unchallenged global dominance, including by marginalizing, containing, weakening and isolating Russia, a high-risk confrontational policy assuring no winners.

US-installed fascists in Ukraine pose a direct threat to Russia’s security. Their regime represents a “long-term source of instability in Europe and directly at the Russian border” – an intolerable situation forcing Putin to respond appropriately, at the same time fostering peace and stability.

Moscow wants nuclear proliferation constrained, urging “the creation of appropriate conditions that will enable a reduction of nuclear weapons without damaging international security and strategic stability” – perhaps a first step toward eliminating these hugely destructive weapons once and for all.

Its document explained “(a)n entire spectrum of political, financial, economic and information instruments has been brought into struggle for influence in the international arena.” America’s agenda threatens world peace.

Russia only intends using force when other options to “protect the national interests” fail, a possibility it hopes won’t be necessary.

It’s concerned about its resource-dependent economy, noting a need to become more diversified and competitive.

It cites “a lag in the development of advanced technologies, the vulnerability of the financial system, the imbalance of the budgetary system, the economy going offshore, the exhaustion of the raw materials base, the strength of the shadow economy, conditions leading to corruption and criminal activities, and uneven development of regions.”

It intends initiatives designed to deal with these and other significant issues – planning social and economic policies to strengthen its financial system, as well as “ensur(e) its sovereignty and the stability of the national currency.”

It understands the threats and challenges it faces – intending to address them effectively, permitting no outside forces from compromising its sovereignty, especially US-led Western ones.

Whether its efforts will be enough to avoid potentially catastrophic global war is the most pressing issue of our time.

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 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-new-national-security-strategy/5498735