Russia

Russia-China visit and statements to the press

Posted by

0

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70750
Press statements by President of Russia and President of China

From Strategic Stability

Report # 218. Russian-Chinese ties became much stronger in every domain, including in military sphere

March, 22, 2023

1. Chairman Xi Jinping visit to Moscow: major results

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese guest Xi Jinping have signed 14 joined documents on increased cooperation in fields ranging from trade and industry to science and the military. The two leaders also touched on the prospects for peace in Ukraine.

Russia and China signed the Joint Statement on Deepening the Russian-Chinese Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation for a New Era, as well as the Joint Statement by the President of Russia and the President of China on the Plan to Promote the Key Elements of Russian-Chinese Economic Cooperation until 2030.

The parties expressed their intention to provide strong mutual support in defending each other’s core interests, above all sovereignty, territorial integrity, security and development.

The two sides have agreed to further develop of the comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction between Russia and China, and to deepen their cooperation on the international stage.

The sides reiterate that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, and it must never be fought.

All nuclear powers must not deploy nuclear weapons outside their national territories and must withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed abroad.

Russia and China expressed concern over the intensification of U.S. efforts to build a global missile defense system and deploy its elements in various regions of the world, combined with the buildup of high-precision non-nuclear weapons for disarming strikes and other strategic capabilities, as well as the U.S. desire to deploy land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific and European regions and to transfer them to its allies.

Russia and China oppose attempts by individual countries to turn outer space into an arena of armed confrontation and will oppose activities aimed at achieving military superiority and using it for military operations.

Moscow and Beijing agreed to “regularly conduct joint maritime and air patrols and joint exercises,” develop military exchange and cooperation using all available bilateral mechanisms, and increase mutual trust between their armed forces.

Despite the consequences of the pandemic and the sanctions pressure, trade reached a historic high of $185 billion in 2022. Both sides expect that Russian-Chinese trade will reach $200 billion by the end of 2023. Russian gas supplies to China climb up at least to 98 billion cubic metres by 2030, plus 100 million tonnes of LNG.

“This is an example of how world powers, who are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have a special responsibility for maintaining stability and security on the planet, should interact,” Vladimir Putin said at the ceremonial dinner.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised Beijing’s 12-point peace roadmap for Ukraine, during a summit with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

“We believe that many of the provisions of the peace plan put forward by China are consonant with the Russian stance and can be taken as a foundation for a peaceful settlement when they are ready for it in the West and in Kiev. However, so far we have not observed such readiness on their part,” Putin stated. The document was released last February under the title “China Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.”

The document was vehemently rejected by NATO countries and the Ukrainian government.

In its joint statement the two sides declared their specific stances on Ukraine: “The parties note that in order to resolve the Ukrainian crisis it is necessary to respect the legitimate security concerns of all countries and prevent the formation of bloc confrontation, to stop actions that contribute to further fomentation of the conflict. The parties emphasize that responsible dialogue is the best way for sustainable resolution of the Ukrainian crisis and the international community should support constructive efforts in this regard. The sides call for the cessation of all steps contributing to the escalation of tension and prolongation of hostilities, to avoid further degradation of the crisis up to its transition to an uncontrollable phase”.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: Russian diplomacy in a changing world

Posted by

0

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article for Razvedchik (Intelligence officer) news magazine, March 24th, 2023

Russian diplomacy in a changing world

It is a privilege for me to submit this article to Razvedchik news magazine and share with its readers my understanding of the current international developments, as well as Russia’s foreign policy priorities.

We live at a time of historic geopolitical shifts. “The change of eras is a painful albeit natural and inevitable process. A future world arrangement is taking shape before our eyes,” President Vladimir Putin said.

Today, the emerging multipolarity constitutes a key trend in international affairs, as I have noted on multiple occasions. New centres of power in Eurasia, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America have achieved impressive results in various areas, guided by their commitment to self-reliance, state sovereignty, and their unique cultural and civilisational identities. They have an independent foreign policy, which prioritises their core national interests. This puts in place objective factors for the emergence of a new multipolar world order – a more resilient, just, and democratic framework reflecting the natural and inalienable right of every nation to determine its future, as well as choose its own internal and socioeconomic development models.

By the way, there are politicians in the West who are beginning to come to terms with this reality, even if reluctantly. For example, President of France Emmanuel Macron has talked about the end of the Western hegemony in international affairs on multiple occasions, even if, truth be told, all this happened before he joined the ranks of the pro-Ukrainian coalition engineered by Washington for countering Russia. It is a separate matter that a correct diagnosis may not necessarily translate into practice or reshape foreign policy thinking based on the principles of international law, equal and indivisible security. On the contrary, the US-led so-called collective West is doing everything to revive the unipolar model, which has run its course. They want to force the world to live in a Western-centric rules-based order that they invented themselves, while seeking to punish those who disagree with these rules, even if no one has ever seen them and they are nowhere to be found.

We never had any illusions as to who we are dealing with. It was clear to us that after the Cold War ended, Washington and its NATO satellites sought total hegemony and wanted to resolve their own development challenges at the expense of others. In the Euro-Atlantic, NATO’s aggressive eastward expansion became an integral part of this selfish policy, carried out despite the political promises that were given to the Soviet leadership not to expand NATO, as well as contrary to the commitments approved at the highest level within the OSCE to refrain from seeking to reinforce one’s security at the expense of security of other states.

The OSCE and Russia-NATO summits adopted multiple resolutions proclaiming that no single group of states or organisation can bear primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the region, or to view any part of the region as its sphere of influence, but these documents have been trampled upon. All these years, NATO has been moving in an opposite direction.

For years, the West persisted in its efforts to penetrate the post-Soviet geopolitical space and to build the so-called axis of instability along the Russian border. The United States and NATO countries have always viewed Ukraine as one of the tools they could use against Russia. To complete the transformation of our neighbouring state into an anti-Russia, the Western spin doctors engineered and then supported an anti-constitutional government coup in Kiev back in February 2014. It was staged even though Germany, Poland and France acted as guarantors of a peaceful political settlement between the government and the opposition.

For eight years, the West not simply turned a blind eye to the genocide of people in Donbass but openly encouraged the Kiev regime’s preparations to use armed force to seize these territories. An illustration of this is the recent admission made by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, who have admitted that they only needed the Minsk Package to give Kiev time to build up its combat capabilities. One more signatory of that document, Petr Poroshenko, has made a similarly cynical admission. This is nothing other than evidence of hypocrisy of the Western political establishment and the Kiev regime it nurtured.

The Western politicians’ real objectives were manifested again in December 2021, when Washington and Brussels rejected Russia’s proposals on providing it security guarantees regarding the region to the west of Russia’s borders.

It is obvious that the situation in and around Ukraine is only an element of a large-scale collision created by a small group of Western states that wanted to maintain their global domination and to turn back the objective process of the rise of a multipolar architecture. Acting in the worst colonial traditions, the Americans and their lapdogs are trying to divide the world into “democracies” and “authoritarian regimes” or, in plain English, into the select few, who are exceptional, and everyone else, who must serve the interests of the “golden billion.” The ultimate essence of that cynical philosophy has been expressed by the EU foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, who said, “Europe is a garden. The rest of the world […] is a jungle.” It was a Freudian slip that exposed their real intentions.

It is not surprising that threats and blackmail have been used not only against Russia but also against many other states. A strategic goal of the systemic deterrence of China has been formulated, including as part of the so-called Indo-Pacific strategies. The malicious practice of interfering in the internal affairs of states, including the fraternal state of Belarus, has not stopped. The years-long trade and economic blockade of Cuba has not been lifted. There are many other examples of this kind. Overall, nobody is safe now from the United States and its satellites’ raiding and mobster-style attacks.

To ensure the adoption of an international agenda in their own interests, Washington and Brussels are trying to “privatise” international organisations and to make them serve their mercenary interests. Here are a few examples. The Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been given attributive functions that are not within its scope, and the Council of Europe has been turned into an instrument of anti-Russia policy and, in fact, an appendage to NATO and the EU. The situation with the OSCE, which was created to conduct an honest European dialogue, is almost the same. This Vienna-based organisation has become a fringe agency where the West is accumulating filth and lies to drown the fundamental principles of the Helsinki Final Act.  It is obvious that the OSCE can no longer deal with serious issues of European security. The West continues its efforts to eliminate the remaining capabilities of the OSCE, in particular, by initiating an exclusive “European political community” that is closed to Russia and Belarus.

Today, our relations with the United States and the EU are at the lowest ebb since the end of bipolar confrontation. When the special military operation began, the West declared a total hybrid war against Russia. Its goal is to defeat us on the battlefield, destroy the Russian economy and undermine our internal political stability.

We have drawn the necessary conclusions from this. There will be no “business as usual” again. We will not knock on the closed door, let alone make unilateral concessions. If the West comes to its senses and offers a resumption of contacts, we will see what exactly they offer and will act based on Russia’s interests. Any hypothetical agreements with the West must be legally binding and must include a streamlined mechanism of their verification.

To tell the truth, we no longer have any illusions about converging with Europe, being accepted as part of the “common European home,” or creating a “common space” with the EU. All these declarations made in European capitals have turned out to be a myth and a false-flag operation. The latest developments have clearly shown that the ramified network of mutually beneficial trade, economic and investment ties between Russia and the EU were not a safety net. The EU did not think twice about sacrificing our energy cooperation, which was a pillar of their prosperity. We have seen that the European elites have no independence and always do whatever they are ordered to do in Washington, even if this results in direct damage to their own citizens. We take this reality into account in our foreign policy planning.

We continue to scrutinise the prospects and expediency of our membership in the international cooperation mechanisms where the West can manipulate the rules of procedure and secretariats to force these cooperation mechanisms to adopt the West’s mercenary agenda to the detriment of Russia’s priorities and equal interaction. In particular, we have withdrawn from the Council of Europe and several other agencies.

We are working with our reliable international partners to transition to foreign trade settlements in non-dollar and non-euro currencies and to create an infrastructure of interbank and other financial and economic ties that will not be controlled by the West.

If the West decides to abandon its Russophobic line and opt for equal cooperation with Russia, this will above all benefit them. However, we are realists who know that this scenario is improbable in the near future. Besides, it will take a great deal of effort to win back our trust. Washington and Brussels will have to work very hard to do it.

There are many partners in the world apart from the US and the EU. This is a global and multipolar world. The attempts to isolate Russia, build a fence around it and turn it into an outcast have failed. The global majority countries, where some 85 percent of the world’s population lives, are not willing to pull chestnuts out of the fire for their former colonial parent states. The international community no longer looks up to the West, which President Putin has aptly described as the “empire of lies” as the ultimate truth or the ideal of democracy, freedom and prosperity.

…

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1859498/

Russia’s draft treaty on security guarantees

Posted by

0

From the Russian Foreign Ministry

17 December 2021 13:30

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”,

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:

shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;

shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

For the United States of America                                                                                                                                                                                                                            For the Russian Federation

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en

David Swanson: A Cold War Re-Education in 8 Minutes

Posted by

0

By David Swanson, March 21, 2021
Remarks at the Cold War Truth Commission

The Cold War didn’t have a hard and fast beginning that transformed the world or that turned heroic anti-Nazi Soviets into Satanic Commies on a particular afternoon.

The rise of Nazism had been facilitated in part by Western governments’ pre-existing enmity for the USSR. That same enmity was a factor in the delay of D-Day by 2.5 years. The destruction of Dresden was a message originally scheduled for the same day as the meeting at Yalta.

Upon victory in Europe, Churchill proposed using Nazi troops together with allied troops to attack the Soviet Union — not an off-the-cuff proposal; the U.S. and UK had sought and achieved partial German surrenders, had kept German troops armed and ready, and had debriefed German commanders. General George Patton, Hitler’s replacement Admiral Karl Donitz, and Allen Dulles favored immediate hot war.

The U.S. and UK violated their agreements with the USSR and arranged new rightwing governments with bans on the leftists who had fought the Nazis in places like Italy, Greece, and France.

Continue reading →

Russia Deploys Two Armies, Three Airborne Units to Counter Threat from 40,000 NATO Troops on Its Border

Posted by

0

By Rick Rozoff
13 April, 2021
Ante-bellum

Posted on Global Research

Major Russian officials today have warned of military threats posed by the U.S.-led thirty-nation North Atlantic Treaty Organization to its western border: its entire western border. And its northern one as well.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that Russia has redeployed two armies and three Airborne Forces units to its western border as part of what he termed an ongoing readiness inspection.

In one of the sternest warnings issued by a Russian official in the post-Cold War era, Shoigu added,

“We’ve taken proper measures in response to the alliance’s military activities which threaten Russia.” Regarding the ground and airborne forces, the defense minister said: “The troops have manifested complete preparedness and the ability to perform their duties to guarantee the country’s military security. At the present time, these units are involved in exercises.”

He also warned that NATO is now concentrating over 40,000 troops and 15,000 items of armaments and military hardware as well as strategic aircraft near the Russian border, stating: “The troops in Europe are moving towards Russian borders. The basic forces are being amassed in the Black Sea area and in the Baltic region.” He also mentioned the preponderance of U.S. military personnel in those deployments, as the Pentagon is reinforcing troops in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

In addition he highlighted the fact that: “The alliance annually holds up to 40 large operational training measures of a clearly anti-Russian bias in Europe. In the spring of this year, the NATO allied forces launched Defender Europe 2021 drills, the largest exercise over the past 30 years.” (Estimates range as high as 37,000 U.S. and NATO troops involved in the several-weeks-long war games from the Baltic to the Black Seas and the Balkans.) NATO’s “Spring Storm” Exercise: Threatens Russia

The Russian defense minister pointed out that Russia’s western border wasn’t the only location where the U.S. and NATO were threatening his nation. He also expressed alarm over the U.S. and NATO military build-up on Russia’s northern flank, the Arctic. He said:

“The competition between the world’s leading powers for access to the Arctic Ocean’s resource and transport routes is increasing. The US and its NATO allies increase their naval and ground groups in the Arctic, increase the combat training intensity, extend and upgrade the military infrastructure.”

In general Shoigu stated that over the past three years NATO has increased its activity along Russia’s borders.

Also today Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that American warships deployed in the Black Sea off Russia’s coast were a provocation. He was speaking as two U.S. guided-missile destroyers, USS Donald Cook and USS Roosevelt, both equipped to carry 56 Tomahawk cruise missiles and an undisclosed number of Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic missiles, are to enter the Black Sea tomorrow and the following day. Earlier this year the guided-missile destroyers USS Donald Cook, USS Thomas Hudner and USS Porter and the guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey were in the Black Sea for exercises, often two at a time. (The most, in terms of tonnage, allowed by the 1936 Montreux Convention, though Turkey’s proposed Istanbul Canal may eliminate that limit.)

Ryabkov said that American warships sailing thousands of miles from U.S. naval bases “always involves a geopolitics element.”

His comments are worth citing extensively:

“I wouldn’t like to go too much into particulars of various interpretations of what freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas is, especially in this context. I know one thing: American ships have absolutely nothing to do near our coasts, and this is a purely provocative undertaking. It’s provocative in the literal sense of this word: they’re testing our patience and getting on our nerves. This won’t work.”

And he issued this stark admonition in the context of the Western threats to Russia over Ukraine:

“Apparently seeing itself as the queen of the seas […] the U.S. should understand after all that the risks of various incidents are very high. We warn the U.S. that it should steer clear of Crimea and our Black Sea coast. This would be to their own benefit.”

His warning is a timely one as Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba is at NATO headquarters today, where U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin arrives tomorrow and Secretary of State Antony Blinken shortly after him.

https://antibellum679354512.wordpress.com/2021/04/13/russia-deploys-two-armies-three-airborne-units-to-counter-threat-from-40000-nato-troops-on-its-border/

://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-deploys-two-armies-three-airborne-units-counter-threat-40000-nato-troops-border/5742683

21 March 2021 – Cold War Truth Commission

Posted by

0

Witness For Peace Southwest Invites You To Join:

A Day of Education, Testimonials & Action

Come Spend The Day While We Put:

“THE COLD WAR ON TRIAL”

Sunday, March 21st–1:00 PM to 7:00 PM (PST)


Here Are The Speakers We Have So Far:

Medea Benjamin, Kathy Kelly, S. Brian Willson, David Swanson, Norman Solomon, Peter Phillips, Jeff Cohen,
Ann Wright, Peter Kuznick,  Roy Bourgeois, Bruce Gagnon, Joel Andreas, Gerald Horne, Matthew Hoh,
David Vine, Mickey Huff, Eric Mann, Jodie Evans, Gerry Condon, Carl Boggs, Jim Lafferty, John Parker,
Marcy Winograd, Jeremy Kuzmarov, Alice Slater, Michael Novick, Carley Towne, Ed Rampell & Others.

Please contact us if you are interested in co-organizing, endorsing,
or in providing citizen testimonial at: sojournerrb@yahoo.com


I think it’s a great idea! Ideologically, it’s right on.”
– Oliver Stone on The Cold War Truth Commission

Hosted by Rachel Bruhnke · sojournerrb@yahoo.com
of Witness For Peace Southwest


Endorsed by CODEPINK, World BEYOND War, RootsAction,
Veterans For Peace, Peacemakers, Covert Action,
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power In Space and ADDICTED To WAR

Register Here: www.codepink.org/03212021

This will be via Zoom.

Victoria Nuland’s role in 30 years of U.S. invasions and interference

Posted by

0

“Progressives in Congress and their partners in the media, think tank world, and among grassroots activists should join forces with the growing caucus of anti-interventionist Republicans on the Hill and vigorously oppose her nomination.” — James W. Carden
theamericanconservative.com/articles/stop-bidens-neocon-nominee-to-the-state-department/

“Victoria Nuland is highly dangerous and should not be confirmed.”

From MintPressNews
February 11, 2012
Rick Sterling

As the Senate prepares to confirm Nuland for Under Secretary for Political Affairs, a reflection of her last 30 years in government shows how she was connected to nearly every foreign policy disaster undertaken by the United States.

President Joe Biden’s nomination of Victoria Nuland for Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the third-highest position at the State Department, is a dangerous sign. Nuland exemplifies the neoconservatives who have led American foreign policy from one disaster to another for the past 30 years, all while evading any shred of accountability.

As a top-level appointee, Nuland must still be confirmed by the Senate. And while pro-peace groups have waged a campaign to stop her confirmation, reflecting on her career in public service makes clear why she is incompetent, highly dangerous, and should not be confirmed.

Afghanistan and Iraq

From 2000 to 2003, when the Bush administration attacked and then invaded Afghanistan, Nuland was serving as Bush’s permanent representative to NATO. The Afghan government offered to work with the Americans to remove al-Qaeda, but the offer was rejected. After al-Qaeda was defeated, the U.S. could have left Afghanistan but instead stayed, established semi-permanent bases, splintered the country, and is still fighting there two decades later.

From 2003 to 2005, Nuland was principal foreign policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney who “helped plan and manage the war that toppled [Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein, including making [the] Bush administration’s case for preemptive military action based on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.” The foreign policy establishment, including Nuland, insisted that removing Saddam Hussein and installing a U.S. “ally” would be simple.

The invasion and continuing occupation have resulted in over a million dead Iraqis, many thousands of dead Americans, hundreds of thousands with PTSD, and a bill for American taxpayers of 2 to 6 trillion dollars.

Continue reading →

President Biden’s magic tricks: watch both of his hands

Posted by

0

From Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
February 5, 2021
Bruce Gagnon

During the Obama administration the Modus operandi (MO) was to play magic tricks. Obama would announce a good thing and then at the same time do a really bad thing.  I started urging people to watch both of the magicians hands. 

Following Obama’s slight of hand tricks, Biden is off to a similar start. Here are a few examples:

  • Just yesterday Biden made a foreign policy speech where he said, “America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy”. But on February 2 Stars & Stripes newspaper [1] reported that his administration was “deploying bombers and airmen to a base in Norway for the first time, underscoring the growing importance of the Arctic region to U.S. defense strategy.” The Air Force has been stepping up its strategic bomber missions in the Arctic, but recent missions have either been staged from England, where bombers typically deploy while training in Europe, or have involved round-trip flights between the U.S. and the Nordic region. This is the first time bombers are deploying to Norway. (Which of course borders Russia in the north.)
  • In his speech Biden praised those who have been calling for an end to the Saudi-US war in Yemen.  He said the US will end all support for Saudi Arabia’s ‘offensive operations’ in Yemen. But then in typical magician style the new prez stated that the US will “continue to help and support Saudi Arabia” by selling them ‘defensive’ weapons.  Now let’s see here – how much difference is there between offensive and defense weapons?  A bullet is a bullet.  A bomb is a bomb….
  • On February 3 Biden announced an agreement to extend the New START Treaty with Russia, to preserve the only remaining nuclear arms agreement between them.  OK that is good.  But are you watching his other hand?  On Biden’s first day in office he ordered more US troops into the oil fields of Syria. [2]
  • On January 28 Biden sent three warships into the Black Sea, stepping up its presence in the region after a drop in overall NATO maritime activity there last year. The destroyer USS Porter began its transit into the sea, joining the USS Donald Cook (built in Bath, Maine) and a third warship conducting operations in the strategic waterway, the Stars & Stripes reported.[3] Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who led the Army in Europe until 2018, said more allies should step up to help the U.S. in the region. “We clearly have to increase the priority of the Black Sea,” said Hodges, who is now the Pershing chair of strategic studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis. “US Navy has too many (requirements) and not enough resources. President Biden will expect Allies to do more.” Russia took note of the US’s Black Sea escalation and sent fighter jets zooming just above Washington’s provocative deployment of destroyers in Russia’s backyard.  How would the US respond if Moscow sent warships into the Gulf of Mexico? 
  • Let’s not leave China out.  Again on January 28 Biden ordered a ‘task force’ of four B-52 bombers to fly to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, part of an ongoing demonstration by the Air Force of its ability to move strategic assets around the globe. Stars & Stripes again reported [4] that the B-52s, from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, were sent to “reinforce the rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific region” through “strategic deterrence.” Guam, at the eastern edge of the Philippine Sea, is within easy range of the South China Sea, where the US is escalating pressure on China to surrender to Washington’s control.
  • Then on February 4, just to make sure that Beijing got Biden’s message that “American is back”, the US Navy destroyer USS John S. McCain (built in Bath, Maine) sailed through the Taiwan Strait [5] marking the first such transit since Biden took office. The Navy called it “routine”. China said it remains on “high alert” and “is ready to respond to all threats and provocations at any time.” My son lives in Taiwan so this one really hit close to home.
  • All of these ‘operations’ cost big $$$$ – especially at a time when the US Congress says that the government can’t afford to give our citizens $2,000 each to help them deal with loss of jobs, no healthcare, growing hunger and poverty, and general economic collapse. But despite all the nice talk about bringing the nation back to sanity and solvency – it is the same old ‘double cross’ – Three-card Monte scam.  Watch both hands of the dealer.  Look away at your own risk.

[1] stripes.com/news/europe/us-air-force-bombers-deploy-to-norway-for-first-time-1.660701?fbclid=IwAR39tIrNICWQATY60CzR2EvCfvJ7DPop0UFQscnDWkwh5F2BKPso8RD1ER4

[2] youtube.com/watch?v=n1QiulgahxU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1uzSdiSovqqWFZbBKsqMe3Gi64NhLgDBKJCG2Fm567EtdaRNaVDzNTD5k

[3] stripes.com/news/europe/navy-sends-three-ships-into-black-sea-as-russia-takes-notice-1.660114?fbclid=IwAR1exjiEkYPqJy13tE3r8diqgyxP8H1BmJhVYHP6CdpN1AzEs34HHJF5TDk

[4] stripes.com/news/europe/navy-sends-three-ships-into-black-sea-as-russia-takes-notice-1.660114?fbclid=IwAR1exjiEkYPqJy13tE3r8diqgyxP8H1BmJhVYHP6CdpN1AzEs34HHJF5TDk

[5] msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-us-navy-warship-sailed-through-the-taiwan-strait-for-the-first-time-since-biden-became-commander-in-chief/ar-BB1dopBg?ocid=msedgntp&fbclid=IwAR0Lr3d81iYDklWrGVvvDxtktk2t4CZUOPxRsc-XTgAmsoxB2ISgv6jT0hU

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2021/02/bidens-magic-tricks-watch-both-of-his.html

China and Russia have long endured massive threats. War hawk JFK against China, Russia, and Cuba

Posted by

0

So many myths have been fed to the American people. Here’s more information about the real John F. Kennedy. [1] 
–
From Global Research
–
By Shane Quinn
February 15, 2018
–

In April 1962, the Kennedy administration ordered nuclear missiles to be sent to Japan’s Okinawa Island. The weapons were directed at the People’s Republic of China, a nation the Americans had “lost” to Communism 13 years before.

President John F. Kennedy‘s decision to aim missiles at China occurred six months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, known as the October Crisis in Cuba. The missiles Kennedy directed at Mao Zedong’s China were “near identical” to those aimed at the US, after the Soviet Union sent nuclear-armed weapons to Cuba in October 1962.

The American missiles on occupied Okinawa – an island just over 500 miles from China’s coast – were “over 75 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima” in August 1945. The nuclear weapon that leveled Hiroshima killed about 80,000 people initially, mostly civilians. However, further tens of thousands later died after succumbing to severe radiation poisoning.

In the early 1960s, China possessed by far the world’s largest population, at almost 700 million. Any order obeyed to fire such destructive weapons at China would have killed unprecedented numbers. Yet the American missiles on Okinawa remained hidden from public knowledge, and has only come to light in recent times. The reason for Kennedy’s order for missiles to be readied on Okinawa, can be traced to intense friction between two of Asia’s largest countries.

A 1962 aerial photograph shows Okinawa’s first Mace missile site at Bolo Point, Yomitan. (Source: Larry Johnston via APJJF)

During 1962, antagonism soared between China and American-backed India – primarily over border disputes along the Himalayas. It culminated in the Sino-Indian conflict, starting on 20 October, with much of the fighting occurring at over 4,000 meters. This forgotten conflict also began in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the Americans were entirely distracted with Cuba. After a month of bloody fighting, China emerged victorious having secured territorial gains.

History, up to the current day, suggests the US holds the right to erect weapons wherever it chooses, ignoring the potential consequences. For example, in 1961, president Kennedy positioned intermediate-range “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey – this time aimed at Russia. The Turkish border is little more than 300 miles from Russia, separated alone by diminutive Georgia.

None of this was lost on the Russians. In May the following year (1962), the Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev complained to a confidant that the Americans “have surrounded us”. Kennedy’s reckless deployment of missiles was also a crucial factor leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Behind the thinking of his Cuban missile decision, Khrushchev explained following his retirement that the Americans

“would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we’d be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine”.

The enormous threats against Russia also had a deeper psychological impact. Over the past century and more, Russia was repeatedly invaded and almost destroyed by invading armies. From Napoleon Bonaparte’s 1812 offensive, through to Operation Barbarossa overseen by Adolf Hitler in 1941.

The intimidation of Russia, a long-time nuclear power, has continued apace to the present day. One significant menace is the continued existence of NATO as an organization – and the presence of its troops and weapons along Russia’s frontiers. NATO receives much of its funding from America, so is in reality a tool of imperialism, posing a significant global security threat.

In more rational times Dwight D. Eisenhower, NATO’s first supreme commander, wrote in 1951 that NATO

“will have failed” if “in 10 years all American troops stationed in Europe… have not been returned to the United States”.

Eisenhower would become a re-elected US president (1953-61), so his was not a voice without weight. It would be interesting to gauge his reaction if he knew that, by 2018, American troops were still present on European soil. This reality may have disturbed George Kennan too, the farsighted former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, himself no dove. In 1996 Kennan described NATO expansion eastwards, in continued violation of agreements, as “a strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions”.

Meanwhile, a further critical element in the placing of Soviet missiles in Cuba, was the Kennedy administration’s assaults on the island nation. There was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, which ended in a Cuban rout of US-backed forces. Stung by this embarrassment, in January 1962 Kennedy outlined that “the Cuban problem” is “the top priority in the United States government”.

The ensuing Operation Mongoose brought the “terrors of the earth” to Cuba – a quote attributed to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s top Latin American advisor. In the months before the missile crisis, Cuba was subjected to widescale terrorist attacks directed from America. This included the bombing of Cuban hotels and petrochemical plants, poisoning of crops and livestock, attacks on fishing boats, the tainting of sugar exports, etc.

In March 1962, it was made clear that the assaults were to lead to “final success” which would “require decisive US intervention”. The renewed invasion of Cuba was dated for October 1962 – it is no coincidence that Khrushchev sent his missiles to Cuba during the same month.

As the missile crisis peaked, the world came perilously close to a nuclear war, largely due to Kennedy’s hegemonic policies. This was all concealed from the American public, who were repeatedly informed the blame lay squarely with the USSR and its Cuban ally.

Image result for posada and bosch

Bosch and Posada (Source: Cuba Headlines)

Following the de-escalation in late October, the US immediately recommenced terrorist operations against Cuba. These murderous acts continued for decades in various forms. This included American support for the Cuban exiles, Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, two of the worst international terrorists of the post-World War II period.

Posada Carriles and Bosch are most infamously remembered for masterminding the 1976 destruction of a Cuban airliner, killing all 73 people aboard. However, the duo were also responsible for countless other terrorist attacks on embassies, consuls, tourist industries, ambassadors, civilians, etc. – not just in Cuba – but across Latin America.

Furthermore, the US continues its blockade of Cuba, which has lasted for more than five decades – despite opposition from virtually the entire world. The embargo was first introduced by Kennedy himself in October 1962.

After visiting Cuba two years ago, then president Barack Obama said he and Raul Castro “continue to have serious differences, including on democracy and human rights”. One could forgive the Cuban leader for being somewhat perplexed by this statement. Not mentioned by Obama was America’s efforts to bring “democracy and human rights” to Cuba, in the form of vicious terrorist assaults and economic strangulation.

Nor did Obama highlight Cuba’s central role in liberating southern Africa from apartheid. South Africa’s racist regime was heavily supported by the US, yet it appears trivial facts such as these are not worthy of mention by Obama, or indeed, the mainstream press.

Since the 1950s, the American record in introducing “human rights” and “freedom” to the world makes something of a mockery of its projected image. Instead, it is Cuba that has long been vilified by Western elites for supposed human rights abuses.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. 

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Shane Quinn, Global Research, 2018
–
[1] Also, for those with the stomach, there is  The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh about the Kennedy presidency.

HR 1644: Congress crosses the red line of common sense with bill violating international law; the U.S. can’t control Russian ports without war

Posted by

0

From Sputnik International

May 6, 2017

Moscow lashed out at a US Congress bill on tightening sanctions against North Korea which stipulates that the US military may establish control over ports in the Russian Far East. The Russian Upper House warned that such actions violate international law and amount to a declaration of war.

Pyongyang
© SPUTNIK/ ILYA PITALEV
US House Passes Bill Authorizing Toughest Sanctions Against North Korea
–

On May 4, the US House of Representatives passed a bill which slapped more sanctions on North Korea and gave the Trump administration the go-ahead to take control over Russian, Iranian, Syrian and Chinese ports in order to ensure that no forbidden cargo reaches Pyongyang.In particular, the bill mentions the ports of Nakhodka, Vanino and Vladivostok in the Russian Far East.

The bill, which was approved by a 419 to 1 margin, is due to be approved by the Senate and then signed by US President Donald Trump.

Tantamount to war

Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Upper House’s International Affairs Committee, told Sputnik that the US House of Representatives bill on establishing control over ports in the Russian Far East envisions a show of force and thus amounts to a declaration of war.

“This bill, I hope, will never be implemented because its implementation envisions a scenario of power with forced inspections of all vessels by US warships. Such a power scenario is beyond comprehension, because it means a declaration of war,” Kosachev said.

According to him, the document, “like a huge number of other pies baked by Congress,” runs counters to international law.

“No country in the world and no international organization, primarily the UN, has authorized the US to monitor the implementation of any resolutions of the UN Security Council,” he said.

The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson transits the South China Sea while conducting flight operations on April 9, 2017.
© REUTERS/ Z.A. LANDERS/COURTESY U.S. NAVY
Armageddon in the Making? US, N Korea Dig In Heels on Pyongyang’s Nukes, Missiles
–

Kosachev called the bill Washington’s attempt to “affirm the supremacy of its own legislation over international law,” which he said is “the main problem of present-day international relations.”He was echoed by Alexey Pushkov, a member of the Russian Upper House, who specifically drew attention to the fact that the bill’ final vote was 419 to 1, something that Pushkov said “indicates the nature of the legal and political culture of the US Congress.”

“It is absolutely unclear how the bill will be implemented. To control Russian ports, the US will have to introduce a blockade and inspect all ships, which amounts to an act of war,” he pointed out.

He shared Kosachev’s view that Washington is trying to extend its legislation to other countries.

Continue reading →