U.S. — Trump administration budget asks Congress for 37 more missile “defense” systems near Russia and for ships along coasts

This isn’t being covered by the mainstream news. Most of the public won’t know about this proposal.

“Along the respective coasts” — which coasts?
Missile “defense” systems include not just missiles, but high intensity radar aimed at populated areas and communities — men, women, children.

Lockheed Martin Corp. makes the Aegis system.

Tell Congress “NO”.

From Fort Russ

February 12, 2018 – FRN –
Rusvesna – translated by Inessa Sinchougova
The US administration has asked to allocate funds for the construction of 37 Aegis missile defense systems in Romania and Poland, the operations director of the Missile Defense Agency, Gary Pannett, said on Monday.
“Within the framework of the draft budget for the 2019 financial year, we have requested 1.8 billion dollars for the systems. The missile defense agency will provide 37 Aegis SM-3 systems to facilities in Romania and Poland, as well as on ships along the respective coasts,” Pennett said at a special briefing in the Pentagon.
On Monday, the US administration submitted the draft budget for the 2019 financial year, which begins October 1, 2018, for consideration by Congress.

Russian Foreign Ministry: US missiles make Romania a “clear threat” and “outpost”

February 9, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
RT – translated by J. Arnoldski –
With the appearance of elements of the US’ “missile defense system” on its territory, Romania represents a clear threat to Russia’s security, the director of the the Russian foreign ministry’s Fourth European Department, Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko, says.
“Regarding Romania’s position and the position of the leadership of Romania which has turned the country into an outpost, this is a clear threat for us. The Romanian side has been informed of this, including publicly,” Botsan-Kharchenko said in an interview.

 

According to the diplomat’s words, the decision to host US missiles is first and foremost directed against Russia. Botsan-Kharchenko asserted that “an openly anti-Russian, even Russophobic line inspired by sanctions and avidly anti-Russian rhetoric” has been observed from Bucharest.

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

Putin: Romania ‘in crosshairs’ after opening NATO missile defense base

From RT

May 27, 2016

During a visit to Greece intended to repair ties with the EU, Vladimir Putin said that Russia has “no choice” but to target Romania, which has recently opened a NATO missile defense base, and Poland, which plans to do so within two years.

If yesterday people simply did not know what it means to be in the crosshairs in those areas of Romania, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security. And it will be the same with Poland,” Putin said during a joint press conference with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras in Athens on Friday.

The Russian President was referring to the Deveselu facility that officially became operational in May after nearly a decade and $800 million of planning and construction.

“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,” said Putin, who is in Greece for a two-day tour.

“We have the capability to respond. The whole world saw what our medium-range sea-based missiles are capable of [in Syria]. But we violate no agreements. And our ground-based Iskander missiles have also proven themselves as superb,” continued Putin.

Russia’s political and military leadership has repeatedly spoken out against the missile defense shield since it was proposed during the George W. Bush administration, and Putin reiterated that Moscow does not believe the European part of it is targeted against a potential threat from Iran.

“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,” said Putin, referring to the nuclear treaty that was concluded between the world’s major powers and Tehran last year. “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.”

Alexis Tsipras in his turn reiterated that Russia is a player in the European security theater and that current attempts to alienate Moscow with measures such as sanctions reminds him of Cold War times.

European security cannot be achieved without cooperation and dialogue with Russia,” Tsipras said in an interview with Sputnik. “I don’t believe that we can move forward or ensure compliance with international law while caught in a vicious circle of sanctions, militarization and Cold War rhetoric.”

President Putin arrived in Greece on Friday for a two-day visit that involves meetings with his Greek counterpart, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, and other top-level discussions.

It is the Russian president’s first EU trip in seven months, and comes just weeks before Brussels decides on whether to extend EU sanctions against Russia.

Bilateral trade and investment, as well as joint energy and transport projects, were said to be major issues on the agenda for the visit. Another pressing matter for both Athens and Moscow, the economic sanctions against Russia, will also be on the table. Prime Minister Tsipras has already told RIA Novosti that the restrictions have had a negative impact on Russian-Greek economic ties, but added there are areas not covered by the sanctions where business between the two countries could perform well.

The Greek PM laid a foundation of trust with the Russian leader and even proposed a visa-free travel regime in the EU for Russian nationals.

“We overcame all the difficulties that arose due to changes in the issuance of Schengen visas, strengthened the work of our consulates in Russia by attracting dozens of new employees, and we are ready to meet the high demand of Russian nationals for travel to Greece. At the same time, I find it necessary, as I have already mentioned at a European level, that dialogue is relaunched on easing the visa regime for Russian citizens,” Tsipras said.

Promoting international security and tackling illegal migration, which is the hot issue in Greece, are also points of mutual interest.

On Saturday, President Putin will attend a prayer service at Mount Athos, which is home to 20 monasteries and is an important spiritual site for Orthodox Christians. Joined by Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, the president is expected to take part in millennial celebrations of the Russian monastic presence on Athos.

https://www.rt.com/news/344642-putin-visit-greece-tsipras/

Is NATO really preparing for war with Russia?

From Fort Russ

May 21, 2016
Zavtra
Expert commentary by Leonid Ivashov
Translated by Kristina Kharlova

British retired general, who in 2014 held the post of deputy supreme commander of the allied NATO forces in Europe, sir Richard Shirreff said that a nuclear war could begin between NATO and Russia within a year if the alliance does not strengthen its defenses in the Baltic states.

According to Shirreff, it is likely that the target of the attack will be Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia, where Russia can justify a possible invasion with “protection of Russian-speaking population”. British general believes that “Russia is confident in NATO’s weakness” and, on this basis, the West needs “to prevent a possible catastrophe.” He is convinced that the confrontation will certainly be nuclear, since this is allegedly woven into the Russian military doctrine.

Earlier this week, the general published a book “2017: The War With Russia”, about fictional events, which are, as the author claims, “very likely to happen” in reality.

On February 3 the British broadcasting company BBC introduced the film “World War Three: Inside the War Room”, which presents a fictional scenario of potential conflict between Russia and NATO: after the capture of Latvian Daugavpils by pro-Russian rebels and intervention of the US-British coalition the world is on the brink of a major nuclear war from which humanity is rescued by the members of British Cabinet.

In early May, the Pentagon said that NATO could deploy four battalions in the Baltic States and Poland. On Wednesday, May 18, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that alliance command wants to deploy multi-ethnic battalions in several countries in Eastern Europe, first of all in the Baltic States.

***

Comment by Leonid Ivashov (General-Colonel, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues, International Journalism professor at MGIMO) :

Leonid Ivashov

One of the most important questions of our time is whether NATO is really preparing for an open war with Russia, and the alliance has already found the place where it starts, or is it a game of nerves, verbal and declarative, but, in fact, not dangerous fuss?

This isn’t horseplay, but serious preparations for war. And not only in the region of our North-Western borders, but along the entire perimeter of Russia. And the start of active preparation for the military phase was triggered by the “National Security Strategy of the USA”, which was adopted in February last year. It stated that there is no multi-polar world, because there is no alternative to American leadership. This whole “Strategy” is riddled with phrases like:

  • We will defend our interests from a position of strength
  • We will conduct combat operations anywhere in the world
  • We will act outside of international law and so on…

And the main target of these military preparations is Russia. And all because Russia is slowly but consistently changing the world. Turned Eurasia towards itself, began to develop relationships in Eurasian, and other regions. The Shanghai cooperation organization, CSTO, Eurasian economic union, the group of BRICS countries – all this is created on the initiative of Russia. That is, the Americans are loosing the lead. Their global domination today in fact is melting. And the goal of the United States – to pin down, and even to crush Russia, as they do with those smaller countries that try to resist. That’s all: the goal of global West is to stop the independent foreign policy of Russia.

With regard to Russian threat. I would advise NATO generals to calculate the ratio of personnel of the armed forces of NATO countries, equipment and qualitative characteristics. They clearly show that it is NATO that is creating shock troops, which threaten Russia, conducting exercises: military-air, naval, ground. Regularly in the Baltic sea area BALTOPS exercises are conducted, during which they practice strategic airlift of US troops from American territory. And that the Baltic States scream that Russia is going to conquer them – first, we don’t need them. And even if they beg to join Russia or for the rapprochement with Russia, there is no need to hurry, they should not be accepted. Such countries are always better to have as an enemy than an ally or part of Russia. However, we must defend the Kaliningrad region, and not only by military means, but also with soft power. There, unfortunately, Germans and Poles are more active than our officials from Russia.

Lets look were around our borders NATO is now most active? Eastern European countries, which joined
NATO and the EU, became the weakest European link. Americans are now using them against Europe and against Russia. The same Poles: whatever the Americans tell them – they salute, and say: “Yes, sir!”. This also applies to missile defense system, and strengthening of the naval component of Poland in the Baltic sea region. Now supposedly the Poles are asking the Americans to open a military base.

Look at Romania: Americans patched the holes on the old Romanian ships, and now actively use them in the Black sea region, deployed some F-22s, modern combat aircraft.

The Balts have nowhere to go: they say yes to everything, as long as America supports the current political elite in power, and fills its pockets.

These are completely dependent countries – the countries of Eastern Europe. Sometimes Hungary, the Czech Republic try to resist, particularly in relation to anti-Russian sanctions, but they are immediately threatened with a coup, anti-government rallies, accused of corruption… The Americans got a strong hold over Europe, including Western, through the instrument of weak Eastern Europe. South-East Europe is also pitted against Russia. The Balkans have always been the military fuse of Europe, and today Americans are trying to turn it into a powder keg. In fact, the accession of Montenegro to NATO has already been decided, however, God help if the whole of Montenegro collects two battalions. So there is no military gain here, but Montenegrians are the destroyers of the Orthodox Slavic world. Milo Djukanovic is, in fact, the Western, Pro-American agent, and the task of the West is to destabilize not just the Balkan region but the entire Orthodox Slavic space. The people of Montenegro, of course, are against NATO, against quarrel with Russia, with Serbia, but no one asks the people, and demands for a referendum are just rejected. The same difficult situation, on the brink of civil war, is in Macedonia.Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina is subjected to coup attempts for elimination from political arena of the popular president Milorad Dodik.

And Serbia itself is stretched, either you join NATO and then the EU, or you will live in a blockade, as today. For Serbia to apply for EU membership, it is necessary to recognize Kosovo’s independence, and in the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia Kosovo is its integral part, but it is forced to do so.

In a prosperous at first glance Croatia we see growing social tension: rallies and protests are commonplace. So the Balkans are again on the brink of internal turmoil with a threat of external military intervention.

Will the Balkans become the stage for a local conflict, which will eventually grow into global? It is unlikely to turn into a global conflict, because today’s Russia will not militarily interfere. The West will just break the Serbs, so that the Serbs, as Bulgarians now, will unquestioningly obey their masters from Washington and Brussels.

Today we are observing an attempt to transform the Orthodox-Slavic world into some semblance of present-day Ukraine.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/is-nato-really-preparing-for-war-with.html

Leonid Ivashov: Russia won’t liberate the Europeans again

From Fort Russ

Leonid Ivashov

Pravda.ru, May 20, 2016

Translated from Russian by Tom Winter

World
In recent years, the geopolitical situation and the military-strategic balance of forces in the world is of ever growing concern. It increasingly sounds like the situation of 1939. There’s a smell in the air of a great war.

In the 90s, many representatives of the Russian ruling circles had the impression that the confrontation with the West was finally over. There was even talk about Russia’s accession into NATO, “the end of history” and so on. However, all that was just so long as the elite overseas powers felt that the destructive processes generated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, would be irreversible for Russia. Do not forget that the policy of destroying Russia still continued, but was veiled in the sweet voice of friendship and cooperation.

Vladimir Putin’s 2007 Munich speech was the first signal to the West to debunk the illusion of a weak Russia, the illusion it generated on its own through inertia beginning in 1991. The conflict in South Ossetia a year later came as a shock, after which Western powers took military confrontation “in a serious way.”

Today we see how disturbed the parity of forces in Europe has gotten in connection with the deployment of missile defense systems in Romania and Poland: in a few years Russia will not be able to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.

What should be the asymmetric response of Russia to the new threats and challenges of the modern world? The president of the International Center for Geopolitical Analysis, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Colonel-General, ex-chairman of the “Union of Russian People,” Leonid Ivashov spoke to Pravda.Ru on these subjects.

“You have to understand that in the situation in Europe, that Europe is militarily colonized by the Americans. The Americans have advanced pro-American regimes in the Western European countries and have completely subjugated Eastern Europe. And there, with a base in Eastern Europe there is pressure on Germany, France, as well as, to a lesser extent, Britain. On the other side, the Turks are working on a flank against Europe; they, in concert with the Americans started this process with migrants of Muslim origin. And so Europe today is the victim of US policy, of transnational corporations, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers. That is what is happening in Europe today.

Europe needs the threat of a bogeyman. And here they’ve made one up, Russia. And besides that, they lie so shamelessly, without paying the slightest attention to the balance of power. How could a country threaten NATO, that has several times less military capability? Especially in the western strategic direction. And in size of defense forces, and on the composition of military equipment, we are disadvantaged three or four times over, as well as in overall military equipment. Therefore, we can only be on the defensive, defend ourselves somehow, but as for offensive and striking groups, we have virtually none. But anything else is just false information and propaganda.

Our attempts to create something in the image of the Warsaw Pact have nothing to work on. We have no such countries in Eastern Europe ready to go to close military and military-technical cooperation. The Americans hold them all by the throat. But we have no need for allies like Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. It’s better they will be enemies.

Screen capture from video at site. Text at top: “Only a new Warsaw Pact could stop NATO aggression” Not the view of Ivashov: “We have no need for allies like Poland…”

What we need to do in this area?

“First: strengthen our military power, to bring it to the required level of defense.

“Second: become closer friends with Belarus and, of course, create a single defense space with Belarus. In addition, there must be political and diplomatic work. It is needful to discuss with Europeans what awaits them. We are not going to free them any more from their occupation, with any military support, not from the migrants, nor from the States, nor from the Turks, they shouldn’t expect it. And, of course, work actively with the Serbs, continue to work with the Bulgarians. Throughout the Balkans we should work actively through political, diplomatic, and economic means.

“Third: it is necessary to understand that it’s the Americans who are behind the whole process, the anti-Russian hysteria, and the process of increasing the power of NATO. So we need to create a military group that is capable to work on the territory of United States. The States are actively developing the missile defense system to neutralize our intercontinental ballistic missiles. So you need to create a bundle of high-precision tools. Cruise missiles to be based within reach of the United States. So it becomes possible to neutralize the US missile defense. We need a real threat to the United States, the foundation of all these processes. 

“When Americans feel threatened, as in 1962, then they themselves will be send invitations to the negotiating table and begin to negotiate.”

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/we-need-real-threat-to-united-states.html

Editor: This partially explains the soft coups underway in Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, and the overtures to Cuba. The US government wants to put these countries under its control so there is no possibility of Russian bases or weapons a la NATO.

A weapon that also must be used is simply the truth about all the West has done and is doing — US, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, etc. Name the names, expose the deeds. Showing the Western soldiers who and what they are really fighting for may encourage them to stand down and stop this insanity. It may be that many soldiers want to be warriors for truth, freedom, and goodness.

U.S. delivers 3,000 tons of weapons and ammo to Al-Qaeda and Co. in Syria

By Moon of Alabama
Global Research, April 08, 2016
Moon of Alabama

The United States via its Central Intelligence Service is still delivering thousands of tons of additional weapons to al-Qaeda and others in Syria.

The British military information service Jane’s found the transport solicitation for the shipment on the U.S. government website FedBizOps.govJanes writes:

The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command. Released on 3 November 2015, the first solicitation sought a contractor to ship 81 containers of cargo that included explosive material from Constanta in Bulgaria to Aqaba. … The cargo listed in the document included AK-47 rifles, PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems. The Faktoria is an improved version of the 9K111 Fagot ATGW, the primary difference being that its missile has a tandem warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to some tanks.

Screenshot of Jane’s Report

The Jane’s author tweeted the full article (copy here).

One ship with nearly one thousand tons of weapons and ammo left Constanta in Romania on December 5. The weapons are from Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania. It sailed to Agalar in Turkey which has a military pier and then to Aqaba in Jordan. Another ship with more than two-thousand tons of weapons and ammo left in late March, followed the same route and was last recorded on its way to Aqaba on April 4.

We already knew that the “rebels” in Syria received plenty of weapons during the official ceasefire. We also know that these “rebels” regularly deliver half of their weapon hauls from Turkey and Jordan to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra):

Hard-core Islamists in the Nusra Front have long outgunned the more secular, nationalist, Western-supported rebels. According to FSA officers, Nusra routinely harvests up to half the weapons supplied by the Friends of Syria, a collection of countries opposed to Assad, ..

U.S. and Turkey supported “rebels” took part in the recent attack on Tal al-Eis against Syrian government forces which was launched with three suicide bombs by al-Qaeda in Syria. This was an indisputable breaking of the ceasefire agreement between Russia and the U.S. It is very likely that some of the weapons and ammunition the U.S. delivered in December were used in this attack.

Millions of rifle, machine-gun and mortar shots, thousands of new light and heavy weapons and hundreds of new anti-tank missiles were delivered by the U.S.. Neither Turkey nor Jordan use such weapons of Soviet providence. These weapons are going to Syria where, as has been reported for years by several independent sources, half of them go directly to al-Qaeda.

From historic experience we can be sure that the consequence of this weaponizing of takfiris will be not only be the death of “brown people” in the Middle East, but also attacks on “western” people and interests.

Skyscrapers falling in New York and hundreds of random people getting killed in Paris, Brussels, London and (likely soon) Berlin seem not be enough to deter the politicians and “experts” that actively support this criminal war on Syria and its people.

The original source of this article is Moon of Alabama

Copyright © Moon of Alabama, Moon of Alabama, 2016

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-delivers-3000-tons-of-weapons-and-ammo-to-al-qaeda-and-co-in-syria/5519413

“Reassuring NATO allies” or asserting power? U.S. troops plan 400-kilometer march through Romania

War preparations continue.

From Stop NATO

U.S. Army Europe
May 13, 2015
2d Cavalry Regiment preps for Cavalry March across Romania
By Sgt. William A. Tanner, 2d Cavalry Regiment Public Affairs

MIHAIL KOGALNICEANU AIR BASE, Romania: Troopers assigned to 2nd Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, participated in a rehearsal of concept drill alongside soldiers belonging to the Romanian Land Forces, in preparation for the unit’s upcoming Cavalry March at Mikhail Kogalniceanu Air Base, Romania, May 11, 2015.

Soldiers from the 18th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, the 4-3 Assault Helicopter Battalion and the 709th Military Police Battalion were also in attendance.

During the drill, plans for the 400 Kilometer vehicle road march from MK air base to the Cincu Training Center, were discussed and finalized.

“The purpose of this mission is simply reassurance to our NATO Allies, especially Romania,” said Lt. Col. Theodore A. Johnson, 2nd Squadron Commander. “This will also be a combined effort to show interoperability and we will defer to the Romanian Armed Forces on all coordination and emerging issues.”

The event, though focused on the transportation of troopers and their vehicles, will also include stops in local townships

Other events, such as a World War II Wreath Laying Ceremony and the Brasov Welcoming Ceremony, will bring a touch of realism to the soldiers involved, by symbolizing both respect for the past and hope for the future.

To follow along with the unit as they make their way across Romania in preparation for their training at the Cincu Training Center, make sure to look out for the hash tags posted above.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/reassuring-nato-allies-u-s-troops-400-kilometer-march-through-romania/

Look at the 2nd Cavalry’s long history. Reassuring or disquieting?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Cavalry_Regiment_(United_States)