As Poland decides to destroy monuments, Russian Duma proposes bringing back the remains of Soviet soldiers to Russia

June 23rd, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
– Sputnik Italia – – translated by Frederick Assar –

Spravedlivaya Rossiya party Vice President Oleg Nilov has suggested Poland should exhume the remains of Soviet soldiers buried in Poland during the Second World War.
Earlier it was announced that the Polish parliament adopted the de-communisation law, which provides for the dismantling of 500 monuments that “glorify communism”.
“The State Duma will release a statement on the matter. One of our proposals is that if they do not want these monuments they should hand them over to us, instead of destroying them … but the most important thing is that if they do not want our grandparents and fathers buried in their country, then they should exhume them with honors and we shall find space in a cemetery in Russia where they can rest in peace, “Nilov told reporters.
On June 22, the Polish parliament approved an amendment to the national law on the prohibition of communism propaganda and other totalitarianisms, the so-called ” de-communisation law”. According to the new amendment, the law also includes the demolition of monuments and commemorative plaques that “glorify communism”. According to the governor, there are about 490 of these monuments in the country.
As stated by the Russian Foreign Ministry, the new laws suggest that there shouldn’t be monuments and symbols in Poland that can perpetuate the memory of organisations, events and dates unwanted by the authorities of the country.
Advertisements

Events moving rapidly across Ukraine to an end-point

A fight is coming one way or another, but Russians are ready to fight and die alongside Ukrainians who want to seize their badly abused country back from the jaws of death. Are Americans, weary from decades upon decades of state endorsed genocide, coup de etat’s and mass invasions, willing to sacrifice more of their sons and daughters to useless, horrific and murderous campaigns for false ideals that end in abject failure?

From Fort Russ

March 3, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
– Op-ed – by James Harmon –

Right now the situation in Ukraine is moving to a critical point. With the “economic Stalingrad” of the march 1st reorientation of management that will direct funds back into the Donbass community, and into the Russian federation, away from western Ukraine, the nationalist gambit to choke off funds from the DNR is going to backfire tremendously.
With extremists acting outside the will of the government of Poroshenko, and viciously protesting him in Kiev – and in places such as Odessa, as recent as ten days ago – a mass march with Ukrainians shouting RUSSIA! RUSSIA! and antifascist slogans, holding USSR and Russian flags, Ukrainians are increasingly divided and polarized.
One thing seems to be ubiquitous however – the antipathy towards the bandit-regime of kleptocrats, globalists and oligarchs that is currently occupying western Ukraine. As Poroshenko’s grip of the country loosens, and more and more citizens become emboldened by rage and motivated by national shame – ground reports of correspondents attached to this publication have reported upwards of 100 soldiers in mid sized Polish cities, likely sent there by the US’s former regime before Trump’s election, to help the current CEO of Ukraine, Poroshenko, retain power for as long as he can over the company assets.
Just like Saigon eventually fell to the North Vietnamese army, large parts of Iraq fell to ISIS terrorists, and the Ustaše fled Yugoslavia frightened, the current western Ukrainian regime exists on borrowed time and will be forced to flee, tail between the legs. However, the memory of many murdered, the many orphaned, and the many raped and robbed will endure in the minds of Russians and those who oppose the horrific events that happened in the past few years in a country that to many, is inseparable from the identity of Russia.
Poroshenko’s “deal with the devil”, in his collaboration with fascists and Americans is coming undone, as the wild dogs will no longer listen to their intoxicated master. A sword of Damocles hangs above his office, ready to strike him down, and force him to flee his own country – only instead of purchasing a Dacha next to Yanukovych’s in Russia, he’ll likely be forced to settle for a cottage in Virginia.
Before that time comes however – the US troops stationed in Polish airports, drunkenly leering at naive Polish girls, urinating on buildings, and loudly bragging will likely find their way into Ukraine, where before they are recalled, more innocent lives will be lost to the greed and ambition of globalist elites. The globalists use any Sturmabteilung they can – Fascists in Ukraine, “Antifascists” in USA, west-philes in Russia, Islamists in Syria – the list goes on.
The question will be – before Chancellor Poroshenko falls, before he runs, in shame, fleeing to a safe house – how many will have to suffer? Will Trump prove that he is more than mere campaign rhetoric, and follow in the footsteps of Reagan, who pulled out of Lebanon in the early 80’s, or will he follow in the footsteps of Obama who destabilized and destroyed large sectors of the world with idealism and Machiavellian use of extremists? [not idealism — it was marketing and PR cover for American and industrial empire-building, a foreign policy tradition; that’s why he could use extremists]
A fight is coming one way or another, but Russians are ready to fight and die alongside Ukrainains who want to seize their badly abused country back from the jaws of death. Are Americans, weary from decades upon decades of state endorsed genocide, coup de etat’s and mass invasions, willing to sacrifice more of their sons and daughters to useless, horrific and murderous campaigns for false ideals that end in abject failure?
Trump has officially snubbed Poroshenko after a long series of very obscure and abstract moves that showcase the deep state’s displeasure at his pro Russian sentiments. Is this the start of Trump showcasing a reasonable attitude to foreign policy, or is it the calm before the storm?

Boiling point: Transcarpathia threatens Kiev with ‘Donbass scenario’

January 10, 2017 –
By Eduard Popov for Fort Russ – translated by J. Arnoldski –
“Transcarpathia is not Galicia”
Over the past year, the regional councils of a number of regions of Ukraine (Poltava and Ivano-Frankivsk) have adopted laws demanding that President Poroshenko empower regions’ rights. Kiev has regarded these as manifestations of separatism. Now the baton has been taken by social organizations not only in Lvov, but also Transcarpathia. Indeed, it appears that Transcarpathis is gradually regaining the status of the main “separatist region” in Western Ukraine.
On October 12th, 2016, the chairman of the Transcarpathian Regional Council, Mikhail Rivis, demanded that the region be allocated more funds for developing infrastructure. Otherwise, Rivis threatened, Transcarpathia might secede from Ukraine. On December 2nd, in the Transcarpathian capital of Uzhgorod, a meeting of Hungarian youth and local deputies was held, whose participants proclaimed support for Rivis’ statement that the region could separate from Ukraine and establish autonomy. Hungarian activists then called on President Poroshenko to sign a special agreement which was read aloud by the leader of the initiative, Hungarian activist Ivan Farkosz. 
Farkosz stated: “We invite Kiev to conclude this agreement on delineating powers, which would allow the Hungarian population to live in Ukraine with dignity. We support the opinion of the head of the Transcarpathian Regional Council, Mikhail Rivis, who announced the existence of objective preconditions for potential secession from Ukraine. If Kiev wants to see this region as part of its state, we demand the establishment of a quota of 20% for representatives of Hungarian communities in the Transcarpathian Regional Council and television broadcasts in Hungarian.”
Hungarians constitute approximately 12% of the population of Transcarpathia and are widely represented in councils on all levels. The raising of their demands for representation to 20% suggests that they have a feel for power and are actually dictating their terms to Kiev. In turn, the SBU has opened a criminal case on the holding of anti-constitutional events and is carrying out an investigation. 
Following Uzhgorod and the local Hungarian community, the Polish community of the capital of Galicia, Lvov, has also asserted its rights. In Lvov on December 25th, a forum of the Polish community of the Lvov region was held whose participants demanded that the Kiev government grant economic autonomy to the region. The chairman of the association of Poles in Lvov, Sergey Lukyanenko, stated that the region is 50 years behind Poland in economic development. Lukyanenko added: “Poland will allow the residents of the Lvov region to realize themselves.” He also noted that Lvov “still has a chance.”
It is worth noting that Poles sympathize with the Hungarians of Transcarpathia. When in March 2016 in Uzhogord there was a procession of Ukrainian neo-Nazis shouting the slogan “Knife Hungarians!,” this caused an outburst of indignation not only in Hungary, but also in Poland itself. As a point of comparison, the Ukrainian foreign ministry and Ukrainian state expressed indignation at Warsaw after one person (only one!) yelled “death to Ukrainians!” at a march in Polish Przemysl. Ukraine, however, chose not to notice the mass calls for killing the Hungarians of Transcarpathia who have inhabited the region for more than a thousand years.

100’s of U.S. tanks, heavy equipment flow into Europe to ‘counter Russian aggression’; not enough Americans are protesting

From RT

January 6, 2017

100’s of US tanks, heavy equipment flow into Europe to counter ‘Russian aggression’
Thousands of US and German troops, along with tanks and equipment, are being sent to Poland and countries bordering Russia, purportedly in “defense against Russian aggression,” author and journalist David Swanson told RT.

Europe is preparing to counter a perceived ‘Russian military threat.’ NATO countries in the East of the continent are awaiting the arrival of thousands of American soldiers as a part of a US-led battle group. The troops will be stationed along the Russian border from Estonia to Bulgaria.

However, ships carrying the first batch of troops were greeted in a German port by signs reading “Army Go Home.”

Scores of protesters marched through Bremerhaven, urging an end to the Alliance’s saber rattling…

In an interview with RT aired January 9, author and journalist David Swanson said

“…members of the Department of so-called Defense in Washington DC are almost openly talking to the media about profit being the motive for stirring up hostility with Russia. But this sending of thousands of troops – US and German – to Poland and countries on Russia’s border along with tanks and equipment – this is being done in the name of “defense against Russian aggression.” So unless you’re [the Pentagon] able to pretend there has been Russian aggression, you’re  not  going to be able to continue this; all this aggression has to be ‘defensive’. If Russia says otherwise, then what Russia is saying must be fake news.”

…you have serious protests in Germany by those who want peace [and are] against sending Germans or Americans from Germany eastward, as they should. There are not enough of us in the US similarly protesting.”
Hundreds of American tanks, trucks and other military equipment have arrived at the German port of Bremerhaven to be transferred to Eastern Europe as part of NATO’s buildup near Russia’s borders.

The Resolve cargo ship arrived on Wednesday, while two more vessels – Freedom and Endurance – are expected in Germany on Sunday, Deutsche Welle reported. The unloading of the ships began on Friday, with the heavy equipment to be transported to Poland via rail and road.

The US plans to deliverer a total of 87 Abrams M1A1 tanks, 20 Paladin artillery vehicles and 136 Bradley fighting vehicles to Eastern Europe, according to Reuters.  Four thousand American troops will reportedly be spread across Poland, the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania where they’ll remain on rotation basis.

Polish and US troops are scheduled to hold joint “massing” drills in Poland later this month, which NATO says is aimed at reassuring its European allies in the face of what it calls aggressive Russian behavior.

The 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, with 50 Black Hawk helicopters, 10 CH-47 Chinook helicopters and 1,800 personnel, as well as a separate aviation battalion with 400 troops and 24 Apache helicopters are also scheduled for deployment in Eastern Europe.

“The best way to maintain the peace is through preparation,” US Major General Timothy McGuire explained, adding that the deployment is about “just showing the strength and cohesion of the alliance and the US commitment to maintain the peace on the continent.” 

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will host troops from Germany, Canada and the UK, with each nation sending up to 1,000 servicemen.

NATO calls it military buildup near Russia’s borders a defensive measure, claiming it is justified after Moscow’s reunion with Crimea in 2014 and its alleged involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. Russia views the military bloc’s actions aggressive and said the massive military is undermining the security balance on the European continent.

READ MORE: ‘No one in Russia plans to attack NATO’ – US envoy to alliance

In November 2016, the Pentagon shipped more than 600 containers of ammunition for Army and Air Force units in Europe, according military.com, marking the largest single shipment of US ammunition in more than two decades, the website reported.

Moscow has responded by stationing its most modern weaponry and armaments on its western borders, including the enclave region of Kaliningrad, and staging large-scale military drills on its own territory.

READ MORE: Russia not on Trump’s list of Pentagon priorities: Leaked memo worries establishment

Washington opted to speed up the deployment of its troops to Eastern Europe after Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election.

Trump, who is to be inaugurated on January 20, has been calling for improved relations with Russia and has voiced skepticism towards NATO, saying European powers would have to contribute a bigger part of the budget if they wanted to continue relying on US protection.

https://www.rt.com/news/372869-us-tanks-germany-nato/

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/373048-nato-us-europe-russia/

NATO force on Russian border ‘not a threat in any way’ – U.S. State Department

From RT

November 22, 2016

© Ints Kalnins
© Ints Kalnins / Reuters

Washington has expressed discomfort over Russia’s deployment of Iskander missiles and air defenses in Kaliningrad, saying that NATO is a “defensive alliance”and is not threatening Moscow. Meanwhile, more tanks and troops are being deployed to the Baltics.

“NATO is a defensive alliance, it’s always been a defensive alliance, it will remain a defensive alliance,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday. “There is no reason why Russia should view NATO in any way, shape or form as a threat.”

On Sunday, NATO kicked off “Iron Sword 2016”exercises in Lithuania, the largest such maneuvers to date, involving 4,000 troops from across the alliance. The exercises in 2015 and 2014 involved 2,500 and 2,000 troops, respectively.

“There is no reason for anybody in Russia to feel threatened by NATO’s military activities or preparations.” Kirby continued. “In terms of recent months and years, there would have been no reason for NATO to advance and commit additional capabilities on the European continent – including American capabilities – had it not been for Russia’s move in Ukraine.”

This is in line with NATO’s official position that military activities in eastern Europe were a defensive response to alleged Russian “aggression” in Ukraine. NATO said Russia was responsible for “annexing” Crimea from Ukraine. The region voted to join the Russian Federation in March 2014, following the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s elected government.

Moscow responded to the recent NATO build-up by announcing it would deploy S-400 air defense systems and “Iskander” missile launchers to Kaliningrad Oblast, a Russian exclave containing almost one million inhabitants sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania.

“Russia is doing all that is necessary to protect itself amid NATO’s expansion toward its borders,” Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, told reporters at the Kremlin on Tuesday. “The alliance is a truly aggressive bloc, so Russia does what it has to do. It has every sovereign right to take necessary measures throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.”

‘Russia is doing all that is necessary to protect self’ – Kremlin spokesman on deployment of missiles in Kaliningrad http://on.rt.com/7vt8 

Photo published for Russia has right to defend against ‘aggressive’ NATO – Kremlin on Baltic missile placement — RT News

Russia has right to defend against ‘aggressive’ NATO – Kremlin on Baltic missile placement — RT News

Russia has the right to protect itself against NATO’s eastward expansion, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, commenting on the deployment of Russian ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad Region….

rt.com

NATO’s military drill on Russia’s border comes amid preparations to permanently station 4,000 alliance troops in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, a decision made at the NATO summit in Warsaw in July.

A quarter of the force would be composed of US troops currently based in Germany, who would relocate to Poland. A 1,000-strong German-led force equipped with tanks would be deployed in Lithuania in February for the first time since WWII. The remaining 2,000 British and Canadian troops would be stationed in Estonia and Latvia.

READ MORE: Germany to send modern tanks to Russian border – Defense Ministry

NATO has accused Russia of “aggressive military posturing” over reports that missiles would be deployed in Kaliningrad, while on Monday Kirby called for Moscow to “refrain from words or deeds that are inconsistent with the goal of promoting security and stability.”

Kosovo: An evil little war (almost) all US candidates liked (Op-Edge) http://on.rt.com/7822 

Established in April 1949 – six years before the Warsaw Treaty Organization – NATO ensured a permanent US presence in western Europe during the Cold War. After the dissolution of both the WTO and the Soviet Union, NATO expanded both its boundaries and its mission. On March 12, 1999, the alliance admitted the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Twelve days later, NATO attacked Yugoslavia. After a 78-day bombing campaign, alliance troops were allowed occupy the Serbian province of Kosovo as “peacekeepers.”

Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states joined the alliance in March 2004, putting NATO on the shores of the Black Sea and on the western border of the Russian Federation. In March 2011, NATO launched an intervention in Libya, aiding the rebels that overthrew the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

https://www.rt.com/usa/367860-russia-missiles-nato-defensive/

Obama slams door in Putin’s face: by his actions says if Putin doesn’t want Russia’s retaliatory forces eliminated, he’ll need to be the one to press the nuclear button first

What Zuesse describes is a duplicitous enemy, one who masquerades with pretty words and distracting gestures as a friend, while planning your downfall.

The clock is ticking down.

From Global Research

Global Research, June 06, 2016
obama-putin

Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin.

On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”

Russia’s concern is that, if the “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works, then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System”, will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere, and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable probems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.

That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction) was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining “The Rise of Nuclear Primacy” and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.

Paul Craig Roberts was the first reporter in the West to write in a supportive way about Russia’s concerns that Barack Obama might be a follower of that theory. One of Roberts’s early articles on this was issued on 17 June 2014 and headlined “Washington Is Beating The War Drums”, where he observed that “US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack.”

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has tried many times to raise this issue with President Obama, the most recent such instance being via a public statement of his concern, made on May 27th. Apparently, the public statement by Antonov on June 5th is following up on that latest Putin effort, by Antonov’s announcement there that Obama now explicitly refuses to discuss Putin’s concerns about the matter.

The fact that these efforts on the part of the Russian government are via public media instead of via private conversations (such as had been the means used during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. President was concerned about the Soviet President’s installation of nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. border) suggests that Mr. Obama, unlike U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1962, refuses to communicate with Russia, now that the U.S. is potentially in the position of the aggressor.

Russia is making its preparations, just in case it will (because of the Aegis Ashore system) need to be the first to attack. However, some knowledgeable people on the subject say that Russia will never strike first. Perhaps U.S. President Obama is proceeding on the basis of a similar assumption, and this is the reason why he is refusing to discuss the matter with his Russian counterpart. However, if Mr. Obama wishes to avoid a nuclear confrontation, then refusing even to discuss the opponent’s concerns would not be the way to go about doing that. Obama is therefore sending signals to the contrary — that he is preparing a nuclear attack against Russia — simply by his refusal to discuss the matter. In this case, his action of refusal is, itself, an answer to Putin’s question, like slamming the door in Putin’s face would be. It’s a behavioral answer, instead of a merely verbal one.

The geostrategist John Helmer discussed on May 30th the question of when the “Trigger Point” will likely be for Putin to decide whether there is no reasonable alternative but to launch — and for him then to launch — World War III.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Putin warns Romania and Poland against installing ABM missiles

From RINF

May 28, 2016

Eric Zuesse

On Friday, May 27th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin again asserted that American President Barack Obama lies when saying that the reason America’s anti-ballistic missile (“ABM”) or Ballistic Missile Defense (“BMD”) system is being installed in Romania, and will soon be installed in Poland, is to protect Europe from Iranian missiles that don’t even exist and that Obama himself says won’t exist because of Obama’s deal with Iran. Putin is saying: I know that you are lying there, not being honest. You’re aiming to disable our retaliatory capacity here, not Iran’s. I’m not so dumb as to believe so transparent a lie as your assurances that this is about Iran, not about Russia.

Putin says that ABMs such as America is installing, disable a country’s (in this case, Russia’s) ability to retaliate against a blitz invasion — something increasingly likely from NATO now as NATO has extended right up to Russia’s very borders — and that Russia will not allow this disabling of Russia’s retaliatory forces.

He said that “NATO fend us off with vague statements that this is no threat to Russia … that the whole project began as a preventive measure against Iran’s nuclear program. Where is that program now? It doesn’t exist. … We have been saying since the early 2000s that we will have to react somehow to your moves to undermine international security. No one is listening to us.”

In other words, he is saying that the West is ignoring Russia’s words, and that therefore Russia will, if this continues, respond by eliminating the ABM sites before they become fully operational. To do otherwise than to eliminate any fully operational ABM system on or near Russia’s borders would be to leave the Russian people vulnerable to a blitz attack by NATO, and this will not be permitted.

He said: “At the moment the interceptor missiles installed have a range of 500 kilometers, soon this will go up to 1000 kilometers, and worse than that, they can be rearmed with 2400km-range offensive missiles even today, and it can be done by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians themselves won’t know.”

In other words: Only the Americans, who have designed and control the ABM system, will be able to know if and when Russia is left totally vulnerable. Not even the Romanians will know; and Putin says, “Russia has ‘no choice’ but to target Romania” — and later Poland, if they follow through with their plans to do the same.

By implication, Putin is saying that, whereas he doesn’t need to strike Romania’s site immediately, he’ll need to do it soon enough to block the ABM system’s upgrade that will leave Russia vulnerable to attack and (because of the fully functional ABM) with no ability on Russia’s part to counter-strike.

He is saying: Remove the ABM system, or else we’ll have to do it by knocking it out ourselves.

Putin knows that according to the Article Five, “Mutual Defense,” provision of the NATO Treaty, any attack against a NATO member, such as Romania, is supposed to elicit an attack by all NATO members against the nation that is attacking. However, Putin is saying that, if NATO is going to be attacking Russia, then it will be without any fully operational ABM system, and (by implication) that Russia’s response to any such attack will be a full-scale nuclear attack against all NATO nations, and a nuclear war resulting which will destroy the planet by unleashing all the nuclear weaponry of both sides, NATO and Russia.

Putin is saying that either Romania — and subsequently Poland — will cancel and nullify their cooperation with U.S. President Obama’s ABM installation, or else there will be a surgical strike by Russia against such installation(s), even though that would likely produce a nuclear attack against Russia by NATO, and a counter-strike nuclear attack by Russia against NATO.

When Putin said “No one is listening to us” on the other side, the NATO side, Putin meant: I don’t want to have to speak by means of a surgical strike to eliminate a NATO ABM system, but that’s the way I’ll ‘speak’ if you are deaf to words and to reason and to common decency.

He will not allow the Russian people to become totally vulnerable to a nuclear attack by the United States and its military allies. He is determined that, if NATO attacks Russia, then it will be game-over for the entire world, not only for Russia.

He is saying to Obama and to all of NATO: Please hear and understand my words, and be reasonable, because the results otherwise will be far worse for everyone if you persist in continuing to ignore my words.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Putin Warns Romania and Poland Against Installing ABM Missiles