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 ready to consider Ukraine bid for membership: Stoltenberg

From Rick Rozoff

Ukrinform
March 21, 2015
NATO ready to consider Ukraine’s bid for membership

images

KYIV: NATO is ready to consider the Ukraine’s bid for membership in the alliance, if Ukraine decides to submit it.

This has been stated by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels at the forum organized by the German Marshall Fund.

“It is up to Ukraine decide whether to submit the bid for NATO membership or not. Ukraine should decide that. If it submits, we will consider the application in the same way as we consider the application of any other country,” Ukrainian media telegraf.com.ua quotes him.

In 2015, the units and the individual officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will take part in 237 events of the individual partnership program [Individual Partnership Action Program] with NATO.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/nato-ready-to-welcome-ukraine-as-full-member-Stoltenberg/

Brussels: NATO holds 50-nation meeting on Ukraine war

This meeting was convened at the request of Ukraine — by the Kiev government.

NATO “allies and partners” accept and protect the violent neo-Nazi leadership of Kiev. They accept and protect the Kiev regime’s violent accession to power, using snipers to kill police and protestors at Maidan. They accept and protect the ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign by the Kiev leadership. They accept and protect naziism and ultra-right extremism.  They accept and protect the war crimes done by the Kiev regime, its use of white phosphorus and chemical weapons, and its shelling of civilians. They denounce self-defense and self-protection by East Ukrainians. They denounce self-determination. They denounce civil rights and life.

These are our leaders — American, British, and European — and this is what they represent.

From Rick Rozoff

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
March 11, 2015

NATO Allies and partners discuss Ukraine crisis

nato-planes

Ambassadors of NATO Allies and twenty-two partners met in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council on Wednesday (11 March 2015) for an exchange of views on the current situation in Ukraine. Chaired by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the session was convened at the request of Ukraine.

The meeting, attended by Russia’s Ambassador to NATO, took place almost one year after the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea by Russia, which NATO Allies do not recognise.

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) nations expressed deep concern over the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, urging Russia to withdraw its forces and its support for the separatists. All members of the EAPC agreed that the full implementation of the Minsk agreement is the only path to a lasting and peaceful solution. Secretary General Stoltenberg stressed that the ceasefire remains fragile and sporadic violations continue. He said that all parties should fully implement the Minsk agreement in good faith, including Russia, whose support for the separatists has further fuelled the conflict. As a first step, he called for a “withdrawal of heavy weapons from the line of contact in a transparent and verifiable manner”, with full access to the OSCE monitors.

Allies and other EAPC participants also condemned Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and called on Moscow to reverse course.

The NATO Secretary General said that “the stability of the entire Euro-Atlantic region have been undermined, as have the values of national sovereignty and peaceful conflict resolution, values which all members of the EAPC have committed to uphold”. Mr. Stoltenberg underlined that the Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council contains a joint pledge to promote peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. He called on all EAPC members to respect this fundamental commitment.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/brussels-nato-holds-50-nation-meeting-on-ukraine-war/

NATO’s Response Force increased to 30,000 troops, up from 13,000; major NATO exercise planned for autumn with 25,000 troops

From Rick Rozoff

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
March 11, 2015
Secretary General discusses security challenges with top NATO military commanders

20150311_150311a-006_rdax_775x516

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discussed security challenges with NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Philip Breedlove, and participated in a conference of senior military commanders during a visit to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe on Wednesday (11 March 2015). The Secretary General thanked the commanders for the remarkable work of Allied forces in the face of a highly complex and uncertain security environment…

The Secretary General warned that Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have undermined the post-Cold War security order in Europe

In response to challenges both to the east and the south, NATO is implementing the strongest reinforcement of its collective defence since the end of the Cold War, Mr. Stoltenberg said. “We are doubling the size of the NATO Response Force from 13,000 to 30,000 troops” and “setting up a new 5,000-strong quick reaction Spearhead Force, with some units ready to move within as little as 48 hours.” He added that NATO is establishing six command and control centres in the Baltic States and three other eastern Allies, in order to coordinate training and exercises, and facilitate rapid reinforcements.

The Secretary General said the Alliance would “keep up the momentum”, noting a current exercise of NATO ships in the Black Sea, a major U.S. deployment to the Baltic region for training, and an upcoming exercise in the autumn – expected to be the Alliance’s largest in many years – with over 25,000 troops participating. “These measures are defensive, proportionate, and in line with our international commitments,” Mr. Stoltenberg said, adding: “these Headquarters and our Supreme Commander Europe, General Breedlove, play a key role in these efforts.”

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/east-and-south-nato-chief-commanders-expand-rapid-strike-forces/

The US wants war — on European soil

Posted on Fort Russ

Analysis by Boniface Musavuli
Translated from French by Tom Winter

One should nurse no illusions about the intentions of the American leadership: they want war. A war that will take place on the old continent and that should involve as many Europeans as possible in confrontation with Russia. The Ukrainians, short of some mass uprising, must resign themselves to seeing their country serve as the long term battlefield for this conflict of the great powers, since their stakes got out of hand when they lost control of the demonstrations at Maidan Square one night in February 2014.

In any case, the latest developments in the United States are hardly reassuring. One year after the demonstrations of the Maidan, hatefully guided by the Atlanticists, the US has officially announced the decision to send 600 parachutists of the 173rd Airborne Brigade to Ukraine. The announcement was made last Monday by Colonel Michael Foster, brigade commander, and confirmed by Ben Hodges, supreme commander of US forces in Europe.

The first combat units are expected to arrive from here in Ukraine March 8. Officially, not for combat, but to train Ukrainian troops, fresh from their debacle in the Donbass, in the use of the American weaponry now being shipped.[1] As far as that goes, shipping American arms to Kiev, one realizes that it will encompass a reciprocal enlargement of military materiel for the autonomous republics of the east, (Donetsk and Lugansk) by Moscow, because, for Russia, it is out of the question for NATO troops to be deployed on the russo-ukrainian borders, and rightly so.

The Russians have never digested getting misled by the West on the sidelines of German reunification.[2] It was to sideline the risk of military escalation that France and Germany decided, beginning of February, to get into direct contact with Vladimir Putin without consulting Washington. It was a matter of reassuring the chief of the Kremlin that France and Germany will oppose the shipping of American weapons to Ukraine.[3] The Russian president showed himself to be open to the Franco-german proposals, and accepted the accords of Minsk II.[4]

The main glitch with Minsk II is the pair of absentees: the Brits and the Americans. Not being bound by the accords, they are going to keep on fueling the conflict.

You must kill each other for America

Just 10 days after the Minsk II accords were signed, David Cameron announced the deployment of British soldiers to Ukraine. One week later, John Sawers, former boss of MI16 (British CIA) confirmed “The war against Russia is only beginning.”[5]

With the deployment of combat units to Ukraine by the US, the Brits are joined by their American cousins who maintain that the situation continues to worsen and degenerate. Obviously, the American and British forces are not going to engage in frontline combat against the Russian Army. Rather this Atlanticist deployment has in view establishing a climate of hatred between populations, a permanent environment of desolation and violence.

One of the strategies used by US incendiarists against the countries they target consists in directly striking the populations, whether by random violence, whether by embargo, or humiliations in systematically putting collective tragedies on the back of “the enemy” that they have chosen. It should surprise no one if the Russian or Russophone population of border countries become the target of indiscriminate killings, deliberately caused famines, that will lead them to demand help from Moscow all the more, help that Putin will not for long be able to refuse them at the risk of turning his back on his own Russians.[6] Except that in assisting further in Ukraine, or if it comes to that, in the Baltics, the Russian President would become an “aggressor”— exactly the image the western media and the leaders from across the Atlantic are trying to pin on him. So some European forces, more or less officially, would lead down the road to “countries threatened’’ by Russia — the beginning of a murderous grind at the heart of Europe.

Faced with these American activities, one is tempted to exclaim “These Americans are insane!” Not at all. In reality, the US, a power running out of breath, counts on the Ukrainian conflict to engage as many Europeans as possible in a military confrontation with Russia. [7] The betting is that (apart from the use of strategic weapons, a scenario of suicide) the American soil will be spared the ravages of the resultant war. When all is said and done, Europeans and Russians, no matter which camp prevails, will be economically drained and ruined. Just like the outcome of the First and Second World War, there will abide only one power of last resort, the United States of America.

Several billions of dollars in contracts for reconstruction, the remission of European states into a protectorate, and the preservation, by America, of her status as the planetary superpower.

Boniface Musavuli

[1] http://www.politis.fr/Escalade-les-…

[2] February 9, 1990, James Baker, George Bush’s Secretary of State, assured Mikhail Gorbachev that the western alliance would not extend its influence one inch eastwards is Moscow would accept the entrance of a reunified Germany into NATO. The very net day, February 10, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German foreign affaires minister, made the same promise to Edward Chevardnadze his Russian counterpart: NATO will not expand to the East. But since, Poland,the Çech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have joined NATO. With the outcomes of the Euro-Maidan, the object was, among others, to get Ukraine into NATO Cf. http://www.courrierinternational.co…
[3] This is, at any rate, what the Italian journalist Giulietto Chiesa assures us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w6…
[4] Because there was Minsk I, a protocol signed September 11, which was not respected.
[7] Provoking a brutal conflict between Europe and Russia permits the Americans to put off an eventual alliance between the Europeans and the Russians, an alliance that would end the American hegemony. In The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), it is the question of “breaking Russia” into three units (European Russia, a Republic of Siberia, and Republic of the Far East), it is also a question of cultivating the docility of the protected subjects, and preventing potential rivals from forming offensive alliances. A strategic rapprochement between Russia and the European nations, (protected subjects) is thus a scenario that the US holders of hegemony would never allow.

 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-us-wants-war-on-european-soil.html

Breedlove’s bellicosity: Berlin alarmed by aggressive NATO stance on Ukraine — Spiegel

Spiegel, March 8, 2015
By Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Marc Hujer, Gordon Repinski, Matthias Schepp, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark and Klaus Wiegrefe

—————————————————————-

Top NATO commander General Philip Breedlove has raised hackles in Germany with his public statements about the Ukraine crisis.

US President Obama supports Chancellor Merkel’s efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. But hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin’s approach. And NATO’s top commander in Europe hasn’t been helping either.

It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn’t holding perfectly, but it was holding.

On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again “upped the ante” in eastern Ukraine — with “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” having been sent to the Donbass. “What is clear,” Breedlove said, “is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.”

German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove’s numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America’s NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove’s comments as “dangerous propaganda.” Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove’s comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

The ‘Super Hawk’

But Breedlove hasn’t been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.

Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel’s diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove’s bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the “super hawk,” whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America’s more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama after a Feb. 9 meeting in Washington: Increasing pressure on America’s more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary. But for months now, many in the Chancellery simply shake their heads each time NATO, under Breedlove’s leadership, goes public with striking announcements about Russian troop or tank movements. To be sure, neither Berlin’s Russia experts nor BND intelligence analysts doubt that Moscow is supporting the pro-Russian separatists. The BND even has proof of such support.

But it is the tone of Breedlove’s announcements that makes Berlin uneasy. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO — and by extension, the entire West — in danger of losing its credibility.

There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians — even as the diplomatic marathon was ongoing — had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk. Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced “direct Russian military intervention.”

Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agency’s satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence agent says it “remains a riddle until today” how the general reached his conclusions.

Much More Cautious

“The German intelligence services generally appraise the threat level much more cautiously than the Americans do,” an international military expert in Kiev confirmed.

At the beginning of the crisis, General Breedlove announced that the Russians had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned that an invasion could take place at any moment. The situation, he said, was “incredibly concerning.” But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion. They believed that neither the composition nor the equipment of the troops was consistent with an imminent invasion.

The experts contradicted Breedlove’s view in almost every respect. There weren’t 40,000 soldiers on the border, they believed, rather there were much less than 30,000 and perhaps even fewer than 20,000. Furthermore, most of the military equipment had not been brought to the border for a possible invasion, but had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict. Furthermore, there was no evidence of logistical preparation for an invasion, such as a field headquarters.

Breedlove, though, repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements. On Nov. 18, 2014, he told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there were “regular Russian army units in eastern Ukraine.” One day later, he told the website of the German newsmagazine Stern that they weren’t fighting units, but “mostly trainers and advisors.”

He initially said there were “between 250 and 300” of them, and then “between 300 and 500.” For a time, NATO was even saying there were 1,000 of them.

The fact that NATO has no intelligence agency of its own plays into Breedlove’s hands. The alliance relies on intelligence gathered by agents from the US, Britain, Germany and other member states. As such, SACEUR has a wide range of information to choose from.

Influencing Breedlove

On Nov. 12, during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria, Breedlove reported that “we have seen columns of Russian equipment — primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops — entering into Ukraine.” It was, he noted, “the same thing that OSCE is reporting.” But the OSCE had only observed military convoys within eastern Ukraine. OSCE observers had said nothing about troops marching in from Russia.

Breedlove sees no reason to revise his approach. “I stand by all the public statements I have made during the Ukraine crisis,” he wrote to SPIEGEL in response to a request for a statement accompanied by a list of his controversial claims. He wrote that it was to be expected that assessments of NATO’s intelligence center, which receives information from all 33 alliance members in addition to partner states, doesn’t always match assessments made by individual nations. “It is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide,” he wrote.

He says that NATO’s strategy is to “release clear, accurate and timely information regarding ongoing events.” He also wrote that: “As an alliance based on the fundamental values of freedom and democracy, our response to propaganda cannot be more propaganda. It can only be the truth.” (Read Breedlove’s full statement here.)

The German government, meanwhile, is doing what it can to influence Breedlove. Sources in Berlin say that conversations to this end have taken place in recent weeks. But there are many at NATO headquarters in Brussels who are likewise concerned about Breedlove’s statements. On Tuesday of last week, Breedlove’s public appearances were an official item on the agenda of the North Atlantic Council’s weekly lunch meeting. Several ambassadors present criticized Breedlove and expressed their incredulity at some of the commander’s statements.

The government in Berlin is concerned that Breedlove’s statements could harm the West’s credibility. The West can’t counter Russian propaganda with its own propaganda, “rather it must use arguments that are worthy of a constitutional state.” Berlin sources also say that it has become conspicuous that Breedlove’s controversial statements are often made just as a step forward has been made in the difficult negotiations aimed at a political resolution. Berlin sources say that Germany should be able to depend on its allies to support its efforts at peace.

Pressure on Obama

German foreign policy experts are united in their view of Breedlove as a hawk. “I would prefer that Breedlove’s comments on political questions be intelligent and reserved,” says Social Democrat parliamentarian Niels Annen, for example. “Instead, NATO in the past has always announced a new Russian offensive just as, from our point of view, the time had come for cautious optimism.” Annen, who has long specialized in foreign policy, has also been frequently dissatisfied with the information provided by NATO headquarters. “We parliamentarians were often confused by information regarding alleged troop movements that were inconsistent with the information we had,” he says.

The pressure on Obama from the Republicans, but also from his own political camp, is intense. Should the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine not hold, it will likely be difficult to continue refusing Kiev’s requests for shipments of so-called “defensive weapons.” And that would represent a dramatic escalation of the crisis. Moscow has already begun issuing threats in anticipation of such deliveries. “Any weapons deliveries to Kiev will escalate the tensions and would unhinge European security,” Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s national security council, told the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on Wednesday.

Although President Obama has decided for the time being to give European diplomacy a chance, hawks like Breedlove or Victoria Nuland are doing what they can to pave the way for weapons deliveries. “We can fight against the Europeans, fight against them rhetorically,” Nuland said during a private meeting of American officials on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of February.

In reporting on the meeting later, the German tabloid Bild reported that Nuland referred to the chancellor’s early February trip to Moscow for talks with Putin as “Merkel’s Moscow stuff.” No wonder, then, that people in Berlin have the impression that important power brokers in Washington are working against the Europeans. Berlin officials have noticed that, following the visit of American politicians or military leaders in Kiev, Ukrainian officials are much more bellicose and optimistic about the Ukrainian military’s ability to win the conflict on the battlefield. “We then have to laboriously bring the Ukrainians back onto the course of negotiations,” said one Berlin official.

Nuland Diplomacy

Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year’s presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying “I love Russia.” Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.

She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone — and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. “No violence against the protesters or you’ll fall,” Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country’s leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.

Nuland has also been open — at least internally — about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said “Fuck the EU” during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.

When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe’s resistance to arming Ukraine.

On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. “While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems,” Nuland said. “It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality.”

Training Troops?

Breedlove complemented that with the military details, saying that moderate weapons aid was inevitable — otherwise neither sanctions nor diplomatic pressure would have any effect. “If we can increase the cost for Russia on the battlefield, the other tools will become more effective,” he said. “That’s what we should do here.”

In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute is a fundamental one — and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing goals. Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow’s influence in the region and destabilize Putin’s power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow.

A massive troop training range is located in Yavoriv in western Ukraine near the Polish border. During Soviet times, it served as the westernmost military district in the Soviet Union. Since 1998, though, it has been used for joint exercises by Ukrainian forces together with the United States and NATO. Yavoriv is also the site where US soldiers want to train members of the Ukrainian National Guard for their future battle against the separatists. According to the Pentagon’s plans, American officers would train the Ukrainians on how to use American artillery-locating radar devices. At least that’s what US Army in Europe commander Lt. Gen. Hodges announced in January.

The training was actually supposed to start at the beginning of March. Before it began, however, President Obama temporarily put it on hold in order to give the ceasefire agreement reached in Minsk a chance. Still, the hawks remain confident that they will soon come a step closer to their goal. On Tuesday, Hodges said during an appearance in Berlin that he expects the training will still begin at some point this month.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/03/08/breedloves-bellicosity-berlin-alarmed-aggressive-nato-stance-ukraine.html

 

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

ISIL is not Muslim, says senior State Department official

State Department official Daniel Rubenstein spoke March 6 at a World Affairs Council luncheon in California[i].

When asked about ISIL and the radical Islam it espouses, Rubenstein told the audience, ISIL are “fakers…they’re not Muslim.” He said in that region, ISIL is “not considered to be the real thing.” He said they are actually “criminals”.

This startling admission by the State Department comes after months of controversy over the nature of ISIL/ISIS/Daish.

Rubenstein is Special Envoy for Syria, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, a Middle East expert. He served as Consul General in Jerusalem, with previous posts including Amman, Sinai, Tel Aviv, and Baghdad.

If ISIL is not radical Muslim, why is it destroying archaeological sites and treasures? If it is under no radicalized mandate to destroy human representations, what is the motivation?

Another audience member asked about reports from the Iraqi Parliament that the U.S and Great Britain are actually supplying ISIL

On February 23, the Iraqi military shot down two British military planes delivering weapons to ISIL. On February 26, a U.S. military helicopter delivering supplies to ISIL was shot down by Iraqi popular forces Al-Hashad Al-Shabi. The Iraqi Parliament stated it is receiving daily reports of U.S. military planes dropping supplies to ISIL. Head of the Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli says he has documents and photos showing that U.S. Apache helicopters airdrop foodstuff and weapons for ISIL.[ii] Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi reported that U.S. planes carried additional Takfiri fighters to areas that had just been liberated from them.[iii]

Mr. Rubenstein declined to comment.

An investigation by Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW) in November 2014 found hundreds of trucks going into Syria daily through an open Turkish border in NATO-controlled territory and directly into ISIL territory.[iv]

In December 2014, Veterans Today senior editor Gordon Duff traveled with a delegation of American intelligence experts to the International Conference on Combating Terrorism and Religious Extremism in Damascus. Duff made these points in a keynote address[v]:

  • What is happening in the Middle East are the effects of large scale international organized crime, not terrorism
  • ISIL and al Qaeda are criminal organizations within a worldwide criminal organization.
  • The motivation is mainly economic, to benefit a specific group of people.
  • Senator John McCain is the father of ISIL and of al Nusra[vi]
  • McCain will probably run US legislative and military foreign policy as a result of the last election.
  • American generals including General McInerny and General Paul Vallely, specialists in psychological warfare, helped organize ISIL.
  • “[McInerny and Vallely] have traveled in and out of Syria, over and over, as had Senator John McCain, meeting with al Qaeda”
  • Al Qaeda was “created by the American, Saudi and Israeli Defense Forces and Intelligence Services.”
  • Israel and organized crime control the United States.
  • The U.S. government serves the interests of a worldwide criminal organization.

Duff says this is built on “solid research on the ground, using human signals intelligence from our extensive capabilities.”

If ISIL’s sponsors are indeed the United States, Great Britain, Israel, and other coalition/NATO members, then ISIL are international mercenaries. The people flooding to join ISIL – 10,000 from Europe for 2015, estimates the French Prime Minister[vii] — are obviously not supporting the Arab Muslim countries of the Middle East.

That leads to the only possible rationale for the archaeological destruction — racism and domination. The goal: to destroy Arabic culture, history, memory, places of power, and people. This rationale has been applied to many other indigenous peoples, in fact, to any country and any people that provided an alternative, another narrative, an antidote, or a refuge from the current regime, whether that regime was Roman, Roman Catholic, Spanish, British, European colonial, Nazi, or American manifest destiny. There are connections and continuity between these regimes. Child and human trafficking and slavery, rape, drug trafficking, assassinations, death squads, weapon smuggling, and now organ trafficking[viii] are common features. Ukraine and the Maidan/Color Revolution movement are current aspects of the regime’s work. The use of “civil society” and NGOs shows this hydra’s reach.

Special Envoy Rubenstein said his present position facilitates aid to Syrian groups and outside NGOs and efforts to overthrow the Assad government. He said that the future transitional Syrian government will be between “external powers” and may not contain any Syrians.

This international alliance or syndicate intends to achieve its goals, whatever the cost. This is already seen in countries such as Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. The cost will fall cataclysmically on the nations of the region that are decimated, subjugated, stripped.

Citizens of sponsoring nations will continue to financially bear the costs – the white phosphorus, cluster bombs, bullets, Agent Orange, after all, cost money, as do soldiers’ salaries, when a country’s military personnel are brought into the fight. All of this is paid with taxpayers’ dollars, taxpayers’ Euros, and taxpayers’ shekels. The military who fight in their conflicts, under the flag-waving and drum-beat of lies, also pay costs like PTSD, damaged bodies, destroyed futures, and death.

Is it too late to stop this? U.S. and NATO forces seem to be racing to get personnel, weapons, structures, contracts, and training in place. A growing number of laws and executive orders in the United States and other countries institute surveillance and control, and undermine civil rights and the freedoms we have left. Are they racing against us? Against the public’s growing understanding of the threat these madmen and women pose to all life? Against the public’s growing action to halt this madness?

The blood is on our hands if we live in these sponsoring nations, whether we will or not. Until we say no, until we stop this violence, until we refuse to support this fascist-globalist machine and get actively involved to stop it, we are, all of us, responsible. Our actions start in our home towns, our schools, in our states, and our nations’ capitals. Our nations are the birthplace of terrorism. The roots are everywhere. We must expose it, root it out, and destroy it.

[i] http://www.wacmb.org/WACMB/Hot_Topic_March_6.html

[ii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931209001345

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931204001534

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-airdrops-weapons-to-isis-as-iraqi-army-makes-gains/5422034

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/12/27/392011/us-drops-weapons-in-areas-held-by-isil/

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-airdrops-weapons-to-isis-as-iraqi-army-makes-gains/

[iii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931206000521

[iv] http://www.dw.de/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbfplUcjLU

http://www.globalresearch.ca/islamic-state-isis-supply-lines-influx-of-fighters-and-weapons-protected-by-turkey-in-liaison-with-nato/5416899

[v] http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/13/historic-speech-in-damascus-sends-shockwaves-around-the-world/

[vi] Additional information: http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html

[vii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931217001412

[viii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931129000236

http://www.globalresearch.ca/organ-harvesting-in-ukraine-goes-unreported/5390599

http://www.plazapublica.com.gt/content/incredible-story-edmond-mulet-and-children-he-exported

Enhanced partners: Ukraine to participate in NATO exercise

Ukrinform
March 3, 2015
Ukraine to take part in NATO crisis management exercise

KYIV: The NATO begins Annual Crisis Management Exercise, the NATO headquarters has told an Ukrinform correspondent in Brussels.

Australia, Finland, Japan, Sweden and Ukraine will participate alongside Allies in the exercise. South Korea, New Zealand and Georgia chose to observe the exercise,” the NATO press office says.

The exercise is designed to test the North Atlantic Council procedures at the strategic political-military level.

The scenario for the crisis management exercise consists of a crisis developing between two non-NATO states at distance from Alliance territory. It contains a humanitarian and maritime dimension, with implications for the security of the Allies.

The exercise will take place between 4 and 10 March 2015.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/enhanced-partners-ukraine-to-participate-in-nato-exercise/

U.S. to deploy interceptor missiles to Poland for NATO war games

From  Stop NATO

Trend News Agency
March 7, 2015

US Patriot missile battery to arrive in Poland for drills

patriot_140613

A battery of US Patriot missile systems will arrive in Poland at the end of March to take part in NATO military exercises, Polish Ministry of National Defense said Friday.

“This time the deployment of a Patriot battery [in Poland] will be a part of operation Atlantic Resolve aimed at increasing military presence at NATO’s Eastern flank,” the Ministry spokesman Janusz Walczak said.

According to Walczak, the military exercises with participation of about 100 US troops and some 30 vehicles will last for several days. The battery to be deployed in Poland belongs to the US military contingent stationed in Germany.

US Patriot batteries participate in military exercises in Poland under the 2008 bilateral missile defense agreement.

 

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/poland-u-s-to-deploy-interceptor-missiles-for-nato-war-games/

False flag? More evidence on the Kiev Maidan snipers

Posted on Global Research from Washington’s Blog

Sniper Attacks As False Flag Terror

Random shootings are a type of false flag terror 

…For example, in 1985 – as part of the “Gladio” (11-21) false flag operations –  snipers attacked and shot shoppers in supermarkets randomly in Brabant county, Belgium killing twenty-eight and leaving many wounded.

Both Sides?

Additionally, shooting both sides is a tip off that it may be a false flag.

Specifically, when authoritarian regimes want to break up protests, they might shoot protesters.

Likewise, when violent protesters shoot government employees, they might be trying to overthrow the government.

But when secretive snipers kill both protesters and the police, it is an indication of a “false flag” attacks meant to sow chaos, anger, disgust and a lack of legitimacy.

This has happened many times over the years. For example:

  • Unknown snipers reportedly killed both Venezuelan government and opposition protesters in the attempted 2002 coup

Snipers Fired At BOTH Police and Protesters In Ukraine

This happened during the Maidan protests which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, as well.  Indeed, the ruthless slaughter of people by snipers was the event which turned world opinion against the then-current Ukrainian Prime Minister, and  resulted in him having to flee the country.

BBC recently interviewed the head of the opposition’s security forces at the time, who confirms that snipers were killing both protesters and police:

The former Ukrainian government security boss said the same thing.  Specifically, he said:

Former chief of Ukraine’s Security Service has confirmed allegations that snipers who killed dozens of people during the violent unrest in Kiev operated from a building controlled by the opposition on Maidan square.

Shots that killed both civilians and police officers were fired from the Philharmonic Hall building in Ukraine’s capital, former head of the Security Service of Ukraine Aleksandr Yakimenko told Russia 1 channel. The building was under full control of the opposition and particularly the so-called Commandant of Maidan self-defense Andrey Parubiy who after the coup was appointed as the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Yakimenko added.

So both the chief of the government’s security forces and the head of the opposition’s security forces said that the same snipers were killing both protesters and police.  While they disagree about who the snipers were, they both agree that the snipers were attempting to sow chaos.

Similarly:

[Current Ukrainian Health Minister Oleh] Musiy, who spent more than two months organizing medical units on Maidan, said that on Feb. 20 roughly 40 civilians and protesters were brought with fatal bullet wounds to the makeshift hospital set up near the square. But he said medics also treated three police officers whose wounds were identical.

Forensic evidence, in particular the similarity of the bullet wounds, led him and others to conclude that snipers were targeting both sides of the standoff at Maidan — and that the shootings were intended to generate a wave of revulsion so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion.

And the Estonian foreign minister [Urmas Paet] – after visiting Ukraine – told the EU foreign affairs minister [Catherine Ashton] that the Maidan opposition deployed the snipers – and fired on both the protesters and the police – to discredit the former government of Ukraine.

Was It Maidan Who Fired?

While the American media has proclaimed that the sniper fire was definitely from government forces, some of the above-cited sources dispute that claim.

Additionally, BBC reported at the time:

Reporting for Newsnight, Gabriel Gatehouse said he saw what looked like a protester shooting out of a window at the BBC’s Kiev base, the Ukraine Hotel.

And BBC recently interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted that he fired a sniper rifle at police from the Conservatory, and that he was guided by a military veteran within the Maidan resistance. Here are actual pictures a reporter took of Maidan snipers, recently published by BBC:

gunmen at Kiev Conservatory 20 February

(There were reportedly at least 10 Maidan snipers firing from the Conservatory.)

The Frankfurther Allgemein reported last year that Maidan commander Volodymyr Parasjuk controlled the Conservatory at the time:

Volodymyr Parasjuk – the leader in “self-defense units” of the revolution who had called the night of Yanukovich’s escape, on the stage of Maidan to storm the presidential residence one year ago.

On the day of the massacre Parasjuk was staying with his unit in the colonnaded building of the Kiev Conservatory right at the Maidan. In the days before the death toll had risen, and the fighters grew the conviction alone with limited power as before will not be able to overthrow Yanukovych. “There were at that time many guys who said you have to take the weapon and attack,” said Parasjuk recalls. “Many,” he himself had since long ago it had firearms, often their officially registered hunting rifles.

Tagesschau – a German national and international television news service produced by state-run Norddeutscher Rundfunk on behalf of the German public-service television network ARD – also reported in 2014 that at least some of the sniper fire came from protesters.

And there are other photographs of protesters with rifles, such as this one from Reuters:

Independence Square in Kiev February 20, 2014. (Reuters/Maks Levin)

Reuters/Maks Levin

So the snipers might have been Maidan opposition forces shooting their own.

But – whoever the snipers were – the one thing that is clear is that they were shooting people from both sides as part of a “strategy of tension” to create maximum chaos. This hints that it may have been a highly-organized campaign of terror.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-the-kiev-maidan-snipers-they-fired-on-both-sides/5434179