Terror attacks in France. Cui bono? U.S.-led coalition supports terrorism

Global Research, November 18, 2015
16 November 2015

In the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, there are three important questions to ask. 

1) Cui bono? 

2) What country could surpass and thwart the sophisticated French intelligence and surveillance system?

3) Why are outcry and public outpourings of support and grief so muted or entirely absent when other countries are invaded or attacked by our forces?

France is on alert since the Charlie Hebdo and market attacks, with heightened security due to President Hollande attending a public sporting event. Who has the resources to wage a coordinated, well-armed, utterly secret attack across Paris and escape notice despite surveillance?

The answer is not “magical evil people,” unless you’ve been watching too much TV or too many Western press conferences.

Look at what is happening in Syria. Look at the timing. There are no coincidences.

  • The U.S., allies, and ISIS are losing in Syria
  • The U.S. is losing support from European allies
  • The U.S. and allies support ISIS
  • The U.S. and allies want control of pipelines, resources, and the region

U.S., allies, and ISIS losing Syria

Russia, assisting the Syrian government, has destroyed almost 2000 terrorist targets in a few short weeks – ammunition depots, command posts, training camps, fortified positions.[1] The U.S.-led coalition, though claiming to fight terrorists for over a year, has had few if any results. Syrians are retaking their country with the help of Russia, Iran, and Iraq.

The U.S. has repeatedly refused to cooperate with Russia or Syria. The U.S. and its partners kill Syrians, destroy vital national Syrian infrastructure, and lie about Syria and Russia.

Discussions are underway for Syrian political solutions. In contrast, the U.S. funds and trains mercenary terrorist forces to overthrow the democratically-elected and popular President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Special Envoy Daniel Rubenstein says Syrians may not even be part of the envisioned Western-created government.[2]

The Russian proposals and assistance are gaining popularity internationally.

U.S. losing European support

European leaders talk about working with Russia to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. Members of the Bundestag (German Parliament) visited Moscow recently. Europeans are being hurt by sanctions. Many oppose U.S.-NATO actions against Russia. The refugee crisis is destabilizing Europe – a powerful impetus to work for peace in Syria.

U.S.-coalition support of terrorism

The U.S. and allies support ISIS and other terrorist groups with active, ongoing aid — supplies, weapons, logistics, medical aid, and protection. This is well documented. These aren’t just a few “mistaken” drops of weapons and supplies to ISIS forces. Turkey, Israel, the UK and France are all involved.[3]

John McCain has been repeatedly photographed with these groups and their leaders.[4] Instead of attacking ISIS, the U.S. and Israel have also attacked and murdered Syrian soldiers defending their country.

U.S.-European regional goals

The U.S. and allies want control of pipelines, oil and gas, and the region.[5] This has been their objective for decades. The U.S. began terrorizing Syria from the beginning, launching its first CIA coup against Syria’s newly formed government in 1949.[6] The U.S. hasn’t stopped since that time.[7] The British and French have been at this even longer.

The military mission by all coalition partners supports powerful economic and financial players. U.S. actions have nothing to do with “American values”, U.S. defense, or the American people. U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler said,

The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag… War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious…I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street… I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents…[8]

Information warfare is waged by U.S. and Western governments to hide what’s going on. The mainstream news media docilely reads whatever cover story it is handed.[9]

Destabilization and/or installation of puppet dictatorships are important to attain U.S./NATO goals.[10] Igniting ethnic feuds and rivalries and supplying weapons keep people divided, distracted, and killing each other, while the U.S. and coalition members loot the region of resources. The powerful American, UK, French, Turkish, Israeli, Saudi and coalition militaries are more than capable of guarding their own critical infrastructure in the midst of this created chaos. They have no qualms with ignoring national sovereignty and destroying people. General Wesley Clarke stated in 2007,

“We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”[11] [12]

But the European public is pushing for peace, especially due to the refugee crisis. What a perfect time to re-galvanize support for U.S./NATO power and goals with a terror attack.

The third question is actually several questions and follows President Assad’s statement that this has been happening in Syria for five years.[13]

3) Why are outcry and public outpourings of support and grief so muted or entirely absent when other countries are invaded or attacked by our forces, and thousands of people killed by our bombs, missiles, bullets, drones, cluster munitions, white phosphorus, depleted uranium, and by sanctions? Libya immediately comes to mind as well as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and eastern Ukraine. Over 500,000 children are dead in Iraq just due to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. How many Westerners opposed that? How many mourned those hundreds of thousands of dead children due to Western terrorism?

Is it terrorism only when it’s done to “us”?

Do we ignore or even applaud our own countries’ terroristic and illegal actions, especially if the people in the countries we attack are a different ethnicity or race or religion? Europe and America have spawned many of the worst examples of terrorism in humanity’s history. How many millions of Syrian people are dead or are refugees because of French and Western terrorism?

How many Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and others have been tortured, raped or murdered because of the terrorism created and funded by France and others?

Are racism and permissible genocide what really drive our community spirit as well as our foreign policies?

American terrorism has a long, long history across the globe; Syria is just one of the chapters.

The School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Georgia, has trained death squads and torturers for many years. A protest in November will once again call for its closure.

NATO’s Operation Gladio and the “stay behind armies” have manufactured terror in Europe and elsewhere since the end of World War II. France has been in the crosshairs of the U.S. before, as have many other countries which weren’t firm enough vassal states. There were 31 assassination attempts against President De Gaulle which were traced to the United States and NATO.[14] When there is even a whiff of neutrality, Washington sends its hit men.[15]

Wikileaks just released evidence of John McCain’s involvement in a plot to shoot down an American plane over Syria and blame it on Russia.[16] In the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff plotted similar false flag terrorist actions to blame on Cuba in Operation Northwoods.[17] We know that President George W. Bush proposed a similar action against Iraq because of the leaked “Downing Street” memo. Washington will do anything to keep its dominance and economic power.

Any school child can easily find a wealth of documentation on this, yet most Americans haven’t a clue. Why? Because they “believe” in Americanism and exceptionalism. They don’t read widely, they don’t ask questions, they don’t investigate, they don’t think, and they won’t protest. This is very, very dangerous. In Nazi Germany, Germans were afraid and many were inactive, but they weren’t blind. Many Americans are willfully blind, self-focused, and lazy. But what will happen when the mercenaries killing other people come knocking on their doors? They forget Martin Niemoller’s poem.[18]

Already, after the Paris attacks, the knives are out for Syria, the false evidence waved in front of the camera. We now know that France was tracking the purported culprits for years, and then stopped.[19] Coincidentally, the French had already brought their largest warship, the Charles De Gaulle, to the Syrian coast just in time for the attacks, and France has now bombed inside Syria, without Syrian permission.

Cui bono?

It is the responsibility of each person to think and see through the charades and the tragedies, to discern the real shapes hiding in the shadows. It is the obligation of each person to expose these crimes, past and present, and hold all the perpetrators responsible.

Silence is consent.

The time to act is very, very short.

Educate, expose, and demand justice now.


[1] http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/11/current-results-of-russian-military.html

[2] Lecture: “The Challenges of Syria: Assad, ISIL, and the Opposition”, World Affairs Council, Monterey, California, March 2015

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













[4] http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html



[6] Wikipedia: “March 1949 Syrian coup d’état”

[6] “1949-1958, Syria: Early Experiments in Covert Action”, by Douglas Little, Professor of History, Clark University. May 2003

Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, by William Blum. Common Courage Press, 2004.



[8] War is a Racket by Major General Smedley Butler and selected quotes




This is a major cause for PTSD and suicide in veterans. Recruited into the military with flag-waving and promises of free college education, men and women discover the truth too late. Once inside the military, it is almost impossible to get out, and they are virtual slaves. Soldiers can be shot if they refuse to obey orders. True support for the troops means stopping the wars, stopping the war economy, bringing all soldiers home with apologies and healing services, and jailing the people at the top in Congress, the Pentagon, and on Wall Street.

[9] http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php#axzz3Z9CBHG6K



On the sarin gas attack:



[10] http://www.globalresearch.ca/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list-of-u-s-regime-changes/5400829



Killing Hope, by William Blum

Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, by Greg Grandin. Henry Holt & Co. 2007

“The Secret Wars of the CIA”, by John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. Parts 1 & 2

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article4068.htm     Part 1

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article4069.htm     Part 2


[11] http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234

General Wesley Clark — retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia

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

[13] http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/11/assad-on-paris-terror-attack-its.html

[14] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lessons-of-history-in-1966-president-de-gaulle-said-no-to-us-nato/5386501

[15] Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins. Berrett-Kohler Publishers. 2004



[16] http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/ukrainian-wikileaks-mccain-and.html

[17] http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

[18] One version of his famous quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) a prominent Protestant pastor who became an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent seven years in Nazi concentration camps.

[19] http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/11/confirmed-french-government-knew.html

Nina Beety is a community advocate, public speaker, and writer on topics including wireless radiation hazards, environmental issues, and American foreign policy. She is author of the report “Analysis: Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems — Legislative Proposal, December 2012″, available on her website www.smartmeterharm.org

Operation Northwoods — Pentagon planned to carry out terrorism and blame Cuba

False-flag terrorism — repeatedly done by the United States. This is the pattern John McCain and the CIA are following in plotting against Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries. Here it was done against Cuba.

This article came out four months before September 11, 2001.


From ABC News

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

New York, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

“The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.”

Gunning for War

The documents show “the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,” writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic].”

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower. The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

“The whole thing was so bizarre,” says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

“That’s what we’re supposed to be freeing them from,” Bamford says. “The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny [???exactly where was Russia doing this all over the world?], basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing.”

‘Over the Edge’

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs’ plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there were real concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a “considerable danger” in the “education and propaganda activities of military personnel” had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn’t get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

“Although no one in Congress could have known at the time,” he writes, “Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.”

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan “pretext” operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

“There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn’t for lack of trying,” he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK’s release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public’s access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

“The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after,” says Bamford.


James Bamford is a former investigative reporter for ABC News.

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

NATO-Kritik im Establishment

English translation at http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/23/4815

NachDenkSeiten, 18. März 2015

Das Bundeskanzleramt wirft dem Oberbefehlshaber der NATO in Europa, Philip M. Breedlove, “gefährliche Propaganda” vor. Zur Frage, was von dieser Kritik, die ausgerechnet von der Regierung eines Landes geübt wird, die derlei Propagandatechniken selbst immer wieder angewandt hat, zu halten ist, sprach Jens Wernicke mit dem renommierten Friedensforscher und NATO-Kenner Daniele Ganser.

Herr Ganser, das Bundeskanzleramt wirft dem Oberbefehlshaber der NATO in Europa, Philip M. Breedlove, “gefährliche Propaganda” vor. Breedlove stelle beispielsweise die militärischen Aktivitäten Russlands in der Ostukraine völlig überzogen dar. Was vollzieht sich hier? Wird hier nun ausgerechnet die NATO von ausgerechnet der deutschen Regierung der Kriegspropaganda überführt?

Das Bundeskanzleramt hat recht mit dieser Kritik. Denn meiner Meinung nach passiert derzeit etwas sehr Gefährliches: US-Generäle wie Breedlove versuchen, einen Krieg vom Zaun zu brechen, in welchem sich Deutsche und Russen gegenseitig töten, damit beide Länder geschwächt werden. Das ist ein zynischer, ja diabolischer Plan. Aber US-Strategen wie Georg Friedman, Direktor des Think Tanks Stratfor, schlagen genau dies vor. Denn vereint seien Deutschland und Russland die einzigen Mächte, welche die USA bedrohen könnten, so Friedman in einem Vortrag im Februar 2015 in Chicago.

“Unser Hauptinteresse besteht darin, sicherzustellen, dass dieser Fall nicht eintritt“, so Friedman. Man müsse daher beide Länder in einen endlosen Krieg verwickeln, so dass sie ausbluten. Nicht alle Menschen in den USA vertreten diese Haltung, aber radikale Kriegstreiber wie Friedman schon. „Die USA können als Imperium nicht andauernd in Eurasien intervenieren”, erklärte er. Daher müsse man die verschiedenen Länder Eurasiens gegeneinander aufbringen und verhindern, dass sie sich in Brüderlichkeit verbinden. “Ich empfehle eine Technik, die von Präsident Ronald Reagan eingesetzt gegen Iran und Irak wurde: Er unterstützte beide Kriegsparteien!“ so Friedman. Der Krieg zwischen Irak und Iran von 1980 bis 1988 forderte übrigens mindestens 400.000 Tote, aus Sicht der Friedensforschung ist es also erschreckend, was Friedman da empfiehlt. „Dann haben die Iraner und Iraker gegeneinander und nicht gegen uns gekämpft“, erklärte Friedman in seinem Vortrag. „Das war zynisch und amoralisch. Aber es funktionierte. Denn die USA sind nicht in der Lage, ganz Eurasien zu besetzen. In dem Moment, indem wir einen Stiefel auf europäischen Boden setzen, sind wir aufgrund der demografischen Unterschiede zahlenmäßig total unterlegen.”

Meiner Meinung nach versuchen nun radikale US-Generäle wie Breedlove genau diese Strategie umzusetzen, damit sich in Zukunft deutsche und russische Soldaten gegenseitig in der Ukraine erschießen und ganz Osteuropa destabilisiert und geschwächt wird. Das aber wäre eine Katastrophe. Darum muss die Friedensbewegung ein Gegenprogramm anbieten, nämlich Neutralität für die Ukraine. Kein NATO-Beitritt also – und Freundschaft zwischen Deutschland und Russland.

Wie geht denn die NATO vor, um den Konflikt zu schüren?

NATO-General Breedlove ist immer wieder dadurch aufgefallen, dass er übertriebene oder unwahre Behauptungen verbreitet hat. Dadurch schürt die NATO den Krieg. Das ist sehr gefährlich, weil die Situation ja angespannt ist, wie wir alle wissen. Am 12. November 2014 erklärte Breedlove zum Beispiel, dass nun russische Truppen und Panzer in die Ukraine einmarschiert seien! Doch das stimmte nicht, und das ist keine Kleinigkeit. Wörtlich sagte der NATO-General: “Wir haben gesehen, dass russische Truppen, russische Panzer, Artillerie und Luftabwehrsysteme in die Ukraine einmarschiert sind.” Das wurde von der BBC und anderen Massenmedien weltweit verbreitet, aber es war eine Lüge.

Und auch US-General Ben Hodges, Kommandeur der US-Streitkräfte in Europa, treibt den Krieg an, indem er die ukrainische Armee unterstützt. Im Januar 2015 besuchte Hodges ein Militärspital in Kiew und überreichte verwundeten ukrainischen Soldaten Tapferkeits-Abzeichen der US-Armee. Das ist völlig ungewöhnlich. Stellen sie sich vor, ein chinesischer General käme in ein Militärspital nach Berlin und würde in Afghanistan verwundeten deutschen Soldaten das Tapferkeits-Abzeichen der chinesischen Armee überreichen! Das erhöht doch die Spannungen.

US-General Hodges zeigt aber symbolisch: Die USA sind jetzt aktiv Kriegspartei in der Ukraine, sie stehen hinter der ukrainischen Armee, die die von Russland unterstützen Separatisten in der Ostukraine bekämpft. Weil Deutschland Mitglied der NATO ist besteht die Gefahr, dass deutsche Soldaten durch die USA in diesen Krieg mit hineingezogen werden, ähnlich wie schon in Afghanistan nach 2001. Wenn das passieren sollte, dann haben wir genau den Zustand, den Friedman fordert: Deutsche und Russen erschießen sich in der Ukraine gegenseitig. Natürlich hoffe ich nicht, dass das passieren wird. Die Friedensbewegung muss vor dieser Gefahr aber warnen, um sie abzuwenden.

Ist derlei denn „üblich“, ich meine: dass die NATO lügt, übertreibt oder betrügt?

Ja, leider hat die NATO immer wieder Lüge und Gewalt kombiniert. In meinem Buch „NATO-Geheimarmeen in Europa. Inszenierter Terror und verdeckte Kriegsführung“ zeige ich auf, wie die NATO im Kalten Krieg in allen Ländern Westeuropas mit Unterstützung des US-Geheimdienstes CIA und des britischen Geheimdienstes MI6 Geheimarmeen aufgebaut hatte, ohne dass die Bevölkerung oder das Parlament etwas davon wusste.

Vor allem US-Generäle sind gefährlich, denn sie haben in den letzten 70 Jahren fast ohne Unterbrechung Krieg geführt in vielen verschiedenen Ländern und sind es als Vertreter eines Imperiums nicht nur gewohnt zu töten, sondern auch zu täuschen. General Lyman Lemnitzer beispielsweise, der von 1963 bis 1969 als SACEUR der NATO diente, also ein Vorgänger des jetzigen SACEUR Breedlove, hat in den 1960er Jahren empfohlen, die USA könnten einen Krieg gegen Kuba inszenieren, indem man ein amerikanisches Schiff auf dem US-Militärstützpunkt Guantanamo selber in die Luft sprengt sowie Terroranschläge in Washington durchführt und beide Verbrechen dann Fidel Castro in die Schuhe schiebt, um das amerikanische Volk auf einen Krieg gegen Kuba einzustimmen. Diese sogenannte Operation Northwoods wurde zum Glück von Präsident John F. Kennedy gestoppt, sie zeigt aber, wie gefährlich hohe Offiziere im Pentagon sind.

Treiben denn nur die USA diese Kriege an oder sind auch andere NATO-Länder involviert?

Die NATO zählt heute 28 Mitglieder und leider sind auch andere NATO-Länder an der Kriegspropaganda beteiligt. Zum Beispiel die Briten. Vor dem Angriff auf den Irak im März 2003 erklärte der britische Premierminister Tony Blair: „Der Irak besitzt chemische und biologische Waffen. (…) Seine Raketen sind binnen 45 Minuten einsatzbereit.“ Das war eine Lüge. Der Angriff der NATO-Länder USA und Großbritannien auf den Irak wurde dann aber dennoch und zwar ohne UNO-Mandat und illegal geführt.

Und auch als die NATO am 24. März 1999 damit begann, Serbien zu bombardieren war dies ein illegaler Angriffskrieg, weil die NATO erneut kein Mandat des UNO-Sicherheitsrates hatte. Damals war es Deutschland unter Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder, Verteidigungsminister Rudolf Scharping und Außenminister Joschka Fischer, das zusammen mit den USA aktiv an diesem Angriffskrieg teilgenommen hat. Im Vorfeld des Krieges wurden Lügen erzählt, um die Menschen in den Krieg zu treiben. Schröder hat 2014 eingeräumt, dass die NATO damals gegen das Völkerrecht verstoßen hat. „Als es um die Frage ging, wie entwickelt sich das in der Republik Yugoslavien, Kosovokrieg, da haben wir unsere Flugzeuge, unsere Tornados, nach Serbien geschickt und wir haben zusammen mit der NATO einen souveränen Staat gebombt, ohne, dass es einen Sicherheitsratsbeschluss gegeben hätte“, so Schröder selbstkritisch.

Wie kommt es, dass bei alldem üblicherweise niemand wiederspricht und nachher in all unseren Medien immer dieselben NATO-Argumente und -Statements zu lesen sind?

Die Massenmedien in Deutschland führen die Menschen leider direkt in die Konfrontation mit Russland hinein, genauso, wie es sich radikale US-Amerikaner wie Stratfor-Direktor Friedman wünschen. Das heißt, es wird täglich der Hass gegenüber Russland geschürt. Nur ganz selten gibt es eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der NATO oder den strategischen Interessen des Imperiums USA, also den Kräften, welche den Krieg in der Ukraine antreiben.

Viele Journalisten getrauen sich auch gar nicht, die USA als Imperium zu bezeichnen, fürchten um ihre Stelle oder anderes. Aber es ist ganz offensichtlich, dass die USA das Imperium der Gegenwart sind, also das mächtigste Land, und natürlich verfolgen Imperien immer ihre Machtinteressen. Dies wird aber von den Massenmedien zu wenig offen dargelegt. Viele sitzen täglich vor dem Fernseher und kennen weder die Bezeichnung „Imperium USA“ noch die strategischen Interessen dieses Imperiums in Eurasien. Daher sind kritische Menschen vollkommen zurecht von den bekannten Fernsehkanälen und Zeitungen enttäuscht und versuchen, sich mehr über das Internet und alternative Medien zu informieren.

Und meinen Sie, die entsprechende Kritik unserer Regierung ist Indiz dafür, dass diese nun endlich der globalen Gewaltspirale den Kampf ansagt, sich also eine Entwicklung weg von Propaganda gegen und hin zu Respekt und Dialog mit Russland abzuzeichnen beginnt? Und: Ist sie selbst, unsere Regierung, denn wirklich glaubwürdiger als die NATO, welche sie nun so wortgewaltig kritisiert?

Ich bin ja in der Schweiz, wir sind nicht Mitglied der NATO. Ich habe also eine Außensicht auf die Politik von Deutschland und Kanzlerin Merkel. Ich sehe, dass sich in Deutschland viele Menschen Sorgen machen wegen des Krieges in der Ukraine, weil er so nahe ist. Und die meisten Deutschen, mit denen ich in Kontakt bin, wollen auf keinen Fall, dass sich deutsche und russische Soldaten in Zukunft in der Ukraine gegenseitig erschießen. Aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, was die deutsche Regierung will. Sie fährt einen Zickzackkurs. An einem Tag heizt sie als NATO-Mitglied zusammen mit den USA den Krieg in der Ukraine an, indem sie die Spannungen gegenüber Russland erhöht. Und an einem anderen Tag versucht sie, die Freundschaft oder zumindest den Respekt gegenüber Russland zu wahren etwa indem sie NATO-Kriegstreiber wie Breedlove öffentlich kritisiert. Welche Linie sich da in Zukunft durchsetzen wird, ist offen.

Und wie bewerten Sie den Abgang des Scharfmachers Anders Fogh Rasmussen als NATO-Generalsekretär? Wird Jens Stoltenberg womöglich eher friedfertigerer Nachfolger sein? Oder anders: Wieviel Einfluss hat der so genannte Generalsekretär eigentlich auf die konkrete NATO-Politik?

Wenn sie die Geschichte der NATO studieren, erkennen sie leicht, dass der Generalsekretär immer ein Europäer ist, also derzeit mit Stoltenberg ein Norweger oder zuvor mit Rasmussen ein Däne. Aber das sollte die Europäer nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass die USA das Sagen haben in der NATO. Der wichtigste Posten ist nämlich nicht jener des Generalsekretärs, sondern der des Supreme Allied Commander Europe, denn hier liegt das militärische Kommando, und das ist immer ein amerikanischer General, derzeit also Breedlove.

Hat Stoltenberg die Kriegstreiberei von Breedlove öffentlich kritisiert oder ihn gestoppt? Nein, denn das kann er gar nicht. Die Aufgabe von Stoltenberg als Generalsekretär besteht vor allem darin, der NATO ein europäisches Gesicht zu geben. Das wirkt in Europa viel besser als wenn immer ein US-Diplomat auftritt.

Ich glaube also nicht, dass Stoltenberg die NATO in eine friedensbringende Organisation verwandeln will oder kann. Und zwar auch deswegen, weil der Leistungsausweis der NATO der letzten beiden Dekaden veranschaulicht, dass NATO-Kriege und die Technik des Regime Change über all diese Jahre hinweg allerorten zerstörte Länder mit traumatisierten Menschen zurückgelassen haben, in Libyen, in Irak und in Afghanistan. Ich hoffe nicht, dass nun auch noch die Ukraine auf diese traurige Liste kommt.

Ich bedanke mich für das Gespräch.

Weiterschauen und -lesen:

George Friedman: “Europe: Destined for Conflict?”

Daniele Ganser: Die Nato dehnt sich aus und nicht Russland


Daniele Ganser (Dr. phil.) ist Schweizer Historiker, spezialisiert auf Zeitgeschichte seit 1945 und Internationale Politik. Seine Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Friedensforschung, Geostrategie, verdeckte Kriegsführung, Ressourcenkämpfe und Wirtschaftspolitik. Er unterrichtet an der Universität St. Gallen (HSG) zur Geschichte und Zukunft von Energiesystemen und an der Universität Basel im Nachdiplomstudium Konfliktanalysen zum globalen Kampf ums Erdöl. Er leitet das Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research (SIPER) in Basel.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is NATO trying to fuel this conflict?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the interview.