America and Turkey begin ground invasion of Syria. How will Russia respond?

By Donbass International News Agency
Global Research, January 24, 2016
dninews 21 January 2016

Amidst an almost total western media blackout, Turkey and the US have initiated a military invasion in Syrian territory. On Wednesday evening, the Turkish army reportedly entered Syrian territory near Jarablus. US troops took control of Rmeilan airfield in Syria’s northern province of Hasakah. It’s unclear what are the real objectives for western military operations on Syrian soil According to the latest news, a major Turkish intervention is expected.

‘US troops have taken control of Rmeilan airfield in Syria’s northern province of Hasakah to support Kurdish fighters against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)”, a spokesperson for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) told Al Jazeera on Tuesday. The airfield is close to Syria’s borders with Iraq and Turkey.

Syrian Local Coordination Committees say that the US has been preparing and expanding Rmeilan airport for a while now. When asked by Al Jazeera, a US CENTCOM media operations officer did not confirm or deny the reports.

According to information received by Sputnik on Wednesday, Turkey has been amassing military units along the Syrian border. The number of troops is estimated to be around 1,000. The troops have reportedly crossed into Aleppo province, according to Hawar News, along with military vehicles, heavy equipment, and mine detection gear. Turkey has denied reports of an invasion, but reports from the ground confirm the military incursion.

Russia Insider writes, that Turkey has seized the ISIS-controlled town of Jarabulus, but faced no resistance, according to reports:

“Eyewitnesses to the incursion reported that the Turkish forces have not encountered any resistance from ISIS fighters in the area. These reports once again raise the question of possible collaboration between Turkey and ISIS aimed at halting the advance of the Kurdish militias in north Syria.”

The Turkish operation is “officially” aimed at combating Daesh (ISIS) militants, who have fortified Jarablus. But sources tell Sputnik that Ankara may be more interested in preventing the YPG from gaining a foothold in a region of strategic importance. Various reports indicate that Ankara could soon (if it has not already) launch a ground operation in neighboring Syria, confirms Sputnik on Thursday.


“Turkey has already begun to ramp up its artillery strikes along its border with Syria to help its rebel allies and to destroy Islamic State targets. This could indicate an effort to soften enemy defenses ahead of a Turkish ground incursion once minesweeping operations have been completed,” Stratfor explained.

“Ankara’s ground operation – if launched – could deal a blow to Daesh. But many experts and politicians have pointed out that Turkey views dealing with the Kurds, not the terrorist group, as its key priority. The offensive than “would also strengthen the [Turkey-backed] rebels in northern Syria, in turn preventing the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) from expanding their reach westward,” Stratfor noted.

Turkey’s ground offensive will likely add additional stress to the already strained relations between Ankara and Moscow. According to Stratfor:

“Still, that does not mean that Ankara, with Washington’s help, is not trying to reach an understanding with Moscow, at least in terms of setting up deconfliction procedures to avoid clashing with each other in the Syrian Warzone, which is rapidly becoming crowded.”


RT reports that ISIS terrorists have increased their activities ahead of next week’s inter-Syrian talks, with insurgents in the Syrian province of Aleppo receiving reinforcements from Turkey, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday. The much-anticipated talks between the Syrian government and different opposition groups are scheduled to take place in  Geneva on January 25.

“Unfortunately, in recent days, it’s especially noticeable that ahead of the planned start of the inter-Syrian negotiations in Geneva the activities of terrorist groups have intensified. Obviously, they’re trying to turn the tide in their favor on the battlefield,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during a briefing in Moscow.

Zakharova said that Russia is concerned over Ankara’s increased military incursions into Syria, adding that

“it cannot be ruled out that… fortifications [built by Turkey] along the Syrian-Turkish border may be used by militant groups as strongholds.”

“While all parties involved pin their hopes on the start of a meaningful and… inclusive dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition, external forces continue to help militants in Syria, including terrorist groups, providing them with arms and ammunition,” she stressed.


The original source of this article is dninews

Copyright © Donbass International News Agency, dninews, 2016


Will Europe follow the US all the way to Hades?

From Fort Russ

The Marine salutes. Should Europe?
“And all these US wars create chaos that spills over ‘good friend’ Europe”
RT en Français
September 15, 2015

Translated from French by Tom Winter

Obama fears a conflict with Russia or China. Surprised? Of course not! But with Europe? This friendship, “value-based” as we are told, is forever, right? The writer Michel Collon answers.

Obama warns the neocons who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran: “Our closest allies in Europe aren’t accepting more sanctions. A war would strengthen Iran and isolate the United States.” A senior diplomat in Washington confirmed “If the US Congress rejects the agreement, it would be a nightmare and disaster.” 

Of course! And immediately after the agreement German firms were rushing to Tehran to sign the contracts that had been blocked by Washington for years! In fact, the principle “The great powers have no principles, only interests” applies equally to alliances: an eternal “friendship” can quickly transform itself into an acute conflict.

To control Eurasia, Brzezinzki proposed controlling Europe, back in 1997: “The central problem for America is to build a Europe based on Franco-German relations, viable, linked to the United States, and that expands the system of international democratic cooperation that America’s exercise of global hegemony depends on.

“Democratic” meaning “subject to the USA” — Brzezinski employs the EU to prevent a Berlin-Moscow alliance. Russia being geographically the “natural” partner for German companies, the US policy is thus to sow discord. Ukraine is getting used for that. When the EU in Kiev won an agreement between all parties for early elections, Washington organized a coup the day after by relying on neo-Nazi groups! The US special envoy Nuland summarizing it all with class: “Fuck the EU.” 

New? No. Already in 1997, Brzezinski announced: “Europe must be a springboard for the further breakthrough of democracy in Eurasia. Between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine should be ready for serious discussions with NATO.” Brzezinski wanted to center Europe an a Paris. – Berlin – Warsaw – Kiev axis. Against Moscow. He feared that European unification would collapse (Is the collapse coming?) and that Berlin would turn  to the East. “The three major geostrategic imperatives can be summed up as follows:

  1. “avoid collusion between the vassals (sic!) and 
  2. keep them in the state of dependence (…),  
  3. cultivate docility (sic) of the protected subjects; 
  4. prevent the barbarians (sic) forming offensive coalitions.

Is this strategy passé? No. Recently, the influential US analyst George Friedman, when asked “Is Daesh a threat to the United States,” responded with these surprising words: “This is not an existential threat. We must take care of it suitably, but we have other interests in international politics. The main interest (…) is the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united, they could threaten us. Our main goal is to ensure that this will never happen.” To prevent European multinationals turning to the New Silk Road proposed by Beijing, the key is to prevent any agreement between Berlin and Moscow. And divert the EU from Russian energy. In short, behind the official smiles on TV, the “friends” in the west don’t love anyone at all. NSA Spying has confirmed it: there are no friends in the business.

The US relationship with the EU has two aspects: unity and rivalry. The European multinationals need US police to intimidate the third world and keep China at bay. But the US multinationals are taking advantage of every war to steal market share from their European rivals. And Washington is very strong about getting paid by its “friends” for the wars that serve its interests at the expense of  the “friends.”

All of these US wars create chaos that spill over “friend” Europe.

In fact, behind the direct and declared foe, every war has a second level of conflict:

  1. In ’91, Bush attacked Iraq in order also to undermine French and Russian contracts. 
  2. In Yugoslavia, Clinton wanted to neutralize France and especially prevent the formation of a Euro-army. 
  3. In Libya, Obama (with Sarkozy) undermined the German and Italian contracts with Gaddafi. 
  4. In Syria, Obama (with Holland) is still working against Germany. 
  5. In Ukraine, ditto. 

And all these US wars create chaos that spills over “good friend” Europe (migration crisis, terrorist attacks, loss of business partners…).

Ultimately, NATO is for Europe a suicide. Will Europe follow the US all the way to the Inferno? The world’s future is in the balance.

Rede von Sahra Wagenknecht in der Debatte des Bundestages: “Die Konfrontation mit Russland hat die Ukraine zerstört. Sie schadet ganz Europa”

English translation at

From Sahra

“Holen Sie sich unser Geld bei den Banken und der griechischen Oberschicht zurück!”
Rede von Sahra Wagenknecht in der Debatte des Bundestages am 19.03.2015 zur Regierungserklärung zum Europäischen Rat am 19./20.03.2015

Zum Video der Rede

Dr. Sahra Wagenknecht (DIE LINKE):

Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Frau Bundeskanzlerin! Zu ihren besten Zeiten hatte die deutsche Außenpolitik zwei Prioritäten. Das waren die europäische Einigung und eine Politik der guten Nachbarschaft gegenüber Russland. Es sollte Ihnen schon zu denken geben, Frau Merkel – wenn Sie bitte zuhören könnten -,

(Volker Kauder (CDU/CSU): Das ist eine Frechheit!)

dass Nationalismus und Zwietracht in Europa, knapp zehn Jahre nachdem Sie das Kanzleramt übernommen haben, wieder gedeihen wie lange nicht mehr und im Verhältnis zu Russland die Entspannungspolitik einem neuen Kalten Krieg gewichen ist.

(Beifall bei Abgeordneten der LINKEN)

Die spezifischen US-Interessen in Europa hat vor kurzem der Chef des einflussreichen Thinktanks Stratfor in einer Pressekonferenz in eindrucksvoller Offenheit erläutert: Hauptinteresse der Vereinigten Staaten sei es, ein Bündnis zwischen Deutschland und Russland zu verhindern, denn – so wörtlich – „vereint sind sie die einzige Macht, die uns”, also die USA, „bedrohen kann”.

Diese vermeintliche Bedrohung von US-Interessen wurde auf absehbare Zeit erfolgreich erledigt. Das begann eben damit, dass die EU im Rahmen der Östlichen Partnerschaft versucht hat, die betreffenden Länder aus der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Kooperation mit Russland herauszubrechen.

(Claudia Roth (Augsburg) (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): Das ist aberwitzig!)

Frau Merkel, natürlich war das gegen Russland gerichtet; aber es war eben auch nicht im Interesse der betreffenden Länder. Sie haben denen das Entweder-oder aufgezwungen, nicht Russland.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Im Ergebnis hat die Ukraine einen Großteil ihrer Industrie verloren. Heute ist dieses Land ein bankrotter Staat, in dem Menschen hungern und frieren und die Löhne niedriger sind als im afrikanischen Ghana.

Aber die Konfrontation mit Russland hat nicht nur die Ukraine zerstört. Sie schadet ganz Europa. Es ist doch ein offenes Geheimnis, dass die Vereinigten Staaten den Konflikt mit Russland auch aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen schüren. Wenn US-Regierungen von Menschenrechten reden, dann geht es in der Regel um Bohrrechte oder um Schürfrechte. Gerade in der Ukraine ist angesichts der großen Schiefergasvorkommen verdammt viel zu schürfen.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wenn jetzt im Rahmen der Energieunion von neuen Pipelinerouten und einer zunehmenden Unabhängigkeit vom russischen Gas geredet wird, dann sollten Sie den Leuten ehrlicherweise sagen, was das bedeutet: wachsende Abhängigkeit vom wesentlich teureren und ökologisch verheerenden US-Frackinggas. Ich halte das nicht für eine verantwortungsvolle Perspektive.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Die Liste der ehemaligen deutschen Spitzenpolitiker, die Ihre Russlandpolitik kritisiert haben, Frau Merkel, ist lang. Da finden Sie die Namen Ihrer Vorgänger Gerhard Schröder, Helmut Kohl, Helmut Schmidt und ebenso Hans-Dietrich Genscher. Vielleicht hat das ja auch zu Ihrem Einlenken beigetragen. Auf jeden Fall war es richtig, dass Sie gemeinsam mit dem französischen Präsidenten Hollande die Initiative zu neuen Verhandlungen ergriffen haben. Minsk II hat immerhin dazu geführt, dass in der betreffenden Region seit Wochen deutlich weniger Menschen sterben als in den Wochen und Monaten davor und dass die Tür zu einer friedlichen Lösung geöffnet wurde.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Natürlich ist das ein wichtiges Ergebnis. Sie, Frau Bundeskanzlerin, und der französische Präsident verdienen dafür Anerkennung.

(Tino Sorge (CDU/CSU): Dann sagen Sie das doch auch mal!)

Wem aber an Frieden und Sicherheit in Europa liegt, der muss den Weg von Minsk II jetzt auch mit Konsequenz und Rückgrat weitergehen. Da ist es natürlich ein Problem, dass Konsequenz und Rückgrat nicht gerade zu Ihren hervorstechenden Eigenschaften gehören.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN – Widerspruch bei der CDU/CSU)

Laut OECD haben beide Seiten den Waffenstillstand wiederholt gebrochen. Sie, Frau Merkel, haben gerade wieder gefordert, dass die Sanktionen gegen Russland erst aufgehoben werden, wenn Minsk II umgesetzt ist.

(Beifall des Abg. Volker Kauder (CDU/CSU))

Natürlich ist es inakzeptabel, wenn aus den Reihen der Aufständischen immer noch geschossen wird.

(Tino Sorge (CDU/CSU): Inakzeptabel!)

Aber wenn ukrainische Truppen oder die auf ihrer Seite kämpfenden Nazi-Bataillone weiter schießen, dann ist das doch mindestens genauso inakzeptabel. Dazu hört man von Ihnen kein kritisches Wort.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wieso melden Sie sich auch nicht mit Kritik zu Wort, wenn die ukrainische Regierung trotz drohenden Staatsbankrotts in diesem Jahr viermal so viel Geld für neue Waffen ausgeben möchte als im letzten Jahr?

(Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE): So ist es!)

Das spricht nicht gerade dafür, dass der Weg des Friedens in der ukrainischen Regierung besonders engagierte Unterstützer hat.

Ebenso können die Entsendung von Militärberatern und die Waffenlieferungen durch die Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritannien eher als Torpedierung denn als Unterstützung des Friedensprozesses gewertet werden. Aber wollen Sie jetzt auch gegen die USA und Großbritannien Sanktionen verhängen? Ich glaube, es wäre besser, einzusehen, dass diese ganze unsägliche Sanktionspolitik ein einziger großer Fehler war, mit dem sich Europa ins eigene Knie geschossen hat. Deswegen sollten die Sanktionen nicht verlängert werden.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wir brauchen auch keine zusätzlichen Panzer. Wir brauchen auch keine 3 000 Mann starke NATO-Interventionstruppe in Osteuropa, die niemanden schützt, sondern den Frieden in ganz Europa nur noch mehr gefährdet.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Helmut Schmidt hatte doch recht, als er schon 2007 gewarnt hat, dass für den Frieden der Welt von Russland heute viel weniger Gefahr ausgeht als etwa von Amerika

(Lachen der Abg. Claudia Roth (Augsburg) (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN))

und dass die NATO nur noch ein Instrument US-amerikanischer Hegemoniebestrebungen sei. Wenn das stimmt, dann lässt das doch nur einen vernünftigen Schluss zu: dass Europa endlich eine eigenständige und von den USA unabhängige Politik machen muss.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Herr Juncker hat nun die These aufgestellt, wir bräuchten eine europäische Armee, um zu zeigen, dass es uns mit der Verteidigung europäischer Werte gegenüber Russland ernst ist. Ich glaube, dieser Vorschlag zeigt vor allem eins: wie weit sich Europa von dem entfernt hat, was einst die Gründerväter der europäischen Einigung wollten.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Damals ging es ‑ Frau Merkel, Sie haben es eben selber angesprochen ‑ um Frieden, um Demokratie und um Solidarität.

(Manuel Sarrazin (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): Und den bösen Kapitalismus!)

Nie wieder sollten Nationalismus und Völkerhass die europäischen Länder entzweien. Aber um solche Werte zu verteidigen, dafür brauchen Sie wahrlich keine bewaffneten Bataillone.


Wenn Sie die Demokratie verteidigen wollen, Frau Merkel, dann setzen Sie sich doch dafür ein, dass die europäischen Länder endlich wieder von ihren gewählten Regierungen und nicht von Finanzmärkten, nicht von dem ehemaligen Investmentbanker Mario Draghi und, bitte schön, auch nicht von Ihnen, Frau Merkel, regiert werden.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN ‑ Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Distanzieren Sie sich einmal von der Gewalt gestern! Das wäre ein wichtiger Schritt!)

Wenn Sie Demokratie wollen, dann stoppen Sie die sogenannten Freihandelsabkommen, dann stoppen Sie TTIP, in dessen Folge demokratische Wahlen endgültig zur bloßen Farce verkommen.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Das wäre eine Verteidigung europäischer Werte! Das wäre eine Verteidigung von Demokratie, diese unsäglichen Verhandlungen über TTIP und ähnliche Abkommen endlich auszusetzen!

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wenn Sie ein einiges Europa wollen, dann hören Sie auf, andere Länder zu demütigen und ihnen Programme zu diktieren, die ihrer jungen Generation jede Perspektive nehmen.

(Manuel Sarrazin (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): Sie haben doch zugestimmt bei Griechenland!)

Hören Sie auf, Europa sogenannte Strukturreformen vorzuschreiben, die nur auf wachsende Ungleichheit und einen immer größeren Niedriglohnsektor hinauslaufen!

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Wer koaliert denn mit den Rechten in Griechenland? Das ist doch Ihre Schwesterpartei!)

In Deutschland sind infolge dieser Politik mittlerweile 3 Millionen Menschen trotz Arbeit so arm, dass sie nicht ordentlich heizen, sich nicht anständig ernähren und schon gar nicht in den Urlaub fahren können. Statt diese Politik zum Exportschlager zu erklären, wäre es an der Zeit ‑ und übrigens sehr im europäischen Interesse ‑, sie endlich hier in Deutschland zu korrigieren; denn es ist nicht zuletzt das deutsche Lohndumping, das anderen Ländern der Währungsunion die Luft zum Atmen nimmt.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Finanzminister Schäuble hat kürzlich versucht, die griechische Regierung mit der Bemerkung vorzuführen: Tja, regieren sei halt immer ein Rendezvous mit der Realität.

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Richtig! ‑ Max Straubinger (CDU/CSU): So ist es!)

Da kann man nur sagen: Schön wär’s! Schön wäre es, wenn die deutsche Regierung ihr Rendezvous mit der Realität endlich auch einmal erleben würde.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN ‑ Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Das schreiben Sie sich auch einmal auf, bevor Sie eine Rede halten!)

Denn Realität ist jedenfalls, dass es nicht die Syriza, sondern die griechischen Schwesterparteien von CDU/CSU und SPD waren, die über Jahrzehnte einen riesigen Schuldenberg aufgetürmt haben, um sich und der Oberschicht die Taschen vollzustopfen.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Realität ist auch, dass Griechenland bereits 2010 hoffnungslos überschuldet war und dass es eine verantwortungslose Veruntreuung von deutschem Steuergeld war, mit diesem Geld die Schulden der Griechen bei den Banken zu bezahlen. Wir haben deswegen damals nicht zugestimmt. Wir haben damals schon einen Schuldenschnitt gefordert.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wer einem Überschuldeten Kredit gibt, der wird sein Geld mutmaßlich nie wiedersehen. Aber die Verantwortung dafür liegt bei Ihnen, Frau Merkel und Herr Schäuble, und nicht bei der neuen griechischen Regierung, die noch nicht einmal zwei Monate im Amt ist.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN ‑ Widerspruch bei der CDU/CSU)

Realität ist auch, dass unter dem Protektorat der von Ihnen immer noch hochgeschätzten Troika, über deren kriminelle Machenschaften man sich in dem hervorragenden Dokumentarfilm von Harald Schumann informieren kann, die griechischen Schulden noch weiter gewachsen und die griechischen Milliardäre noch reicher geworden sind.

(Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE): So ist es!)

Und das wollen Sie fortsetzen? Da kann ich nur sagen: Gute Nacht!

Wenn Sie unser Geld zurückholen wollen, dann holen Sie es bei denen, die es bekommen haben,

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

und das waren nicht griechische Rentner und griechische Krankenschwestern, sondern die internationalen Banken und die griechische Oberschicht. An dieser Stelle können Sie der griechischen Regierung helfen, das Geld wieder einzutreiben.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN – Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Sagen Sie das doch einmal Herrn Tsipras! Wer regiert denn in Griechenland?)

Zu der ganzen Debatte um mögliche Reparationszahlungen möchte ich nur sagen:

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Die ist zu Ende!)

Egal, wie man diese Forderungen juristisch bewertet, das Mindeste, was man von Vertretern des deutschen Staates erwarten kann, ist ein Mindestmaß an Sensibilität im Umgang mit diesem Thema.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN – Lachen bei Abgeordneten der CDU/CSU)

‑ Ich muss sagen, dass Sie jetzt auch noch lachen, ist wirklich traurig.

(Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE): Unsensibel!)

Angesichts dessen, wie die deutschen Besatzer in Griechenland gewütet haben, und der Tatsache, dass eine Million Griechinnen und Griechen in diesem finsteren Kapitel deutscher Geschichte ihr Leben verloren haben, finde ich die schnoddrigen Äußerungen von Ihnen, Herr Schäuble, und von Ihnen, Herr Kauder, einfach nur respektlos, und ich schäme mich dafür.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN sowie des Abg. Jürgen Trittin (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN) ‑ Zurufe von der CDU/CSU: Oh!)

Um daran zu erinnern, dass Umgang mit Geschichte auch anders geht, möchte ich zum Schluss aus der Rede Richard von Weizsäckers aus Anlass des 40. Jahrestages der Befreiung zitieren; ich komme gleich zum Schluss, Herr Präsident. Sie bezog sich damals vor allem auf Russland und Osteuropa, aber sie gilt natürlich auch für Griechenland:

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Was Sie alles wissen!)

“Wenn wir daran denken, was unsere östlichen Nachbarn im Kriege erleiden mussten, werden wir besser verstehen, dass der Ausgleich, die Entspannung und die friedliche Nachbarschaft mit diesen Ländern zentrale Aufgaben der deutschen Außenpolitik bleiben. Es gilt, dass beide Seiten sich erinnern und beide Seiten einander achten.”

Ja, nur wenn wir uns erinnern und nur wenn wir einander achten, nur dann finden wir zu einer Politik der guten Nachbarschaft zurück, sowohl innerhalb der EU als auch gegenüber Russland.

(Anhaltender Beifall bei der LINKEN)


NATO-Kritik im Establishment

English translation at

NachDenkSeiten, 18. März 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ich bedanke mich für das Gespräch.

Weiterschauen und -lesen:

George Friedman: “Europe: Destined for Conflict?”

Daniele Ganser: Die Nato dehnt sich aus und nicht Russland


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is NATO trying to fuel this conflict?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the interview.

Stratfor “forecasted” US bases on Russia’s borders, now “forecasts” Russia’s fragmentation. Who will stand for Russia?

Posted on Fort Russ

Je suis Putin

March 12, 2015

Translated by Kristina RusA man like Putin: by 2018, each region will need their own Vladimir Vladimirovich.

On February 28 Stratfor posted a very interesting document – Decade Forecast: 2015-2025.

“Stratfor” is “Strategic Forecasting Inc.”, also known as the “shadow” or “private CIA” engaged in a highly profitable business of collecting, evaluating and forecasting information. “Statfor” was founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, a former professor of political science, who is now the director of the organization. Today the audience of the company is 300 thousand paid subscribers and over two million free subscribers.

Among them – Coca-Cola, which gets advice about the stability of the situation in China on the eve of the Olympic games in Beijing; the corporation “Northrup Grumman” interested about the possibility of Japan obtaining nuclear weapons; “Intel”, asking about the presence of Hezbollah in Latin America and their likelihood to carry out terrorist acts, the owner of hotel chain “Radisson”; looking for the end date of the offensive of militant Islamist groups. Also the services of Stratfor are used by “Goldman Sachs”, “Merrill Lynch”, US marine corps and Georgetown University. Each pays 20 thousand dollars a year to get their hands on a tailored confidential information.

However, Friedman has more serious clients, namely the U.S. State Department, Pentagon, and the large global financial oligarchy standing behind them.

It is easy to figure out, connecting Stratfor’s predictions with the subsequent actions of the government and the U.S. army.

Thus, on March 27 [2014], George Friedman published an article titled “American strategy after Ukraine: from Estonia to Azerbaijan”. There, among other points, particular focus was on the military strategy of the United States against Russia after the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. In particular, Friedman rightly argued that at this point in time, NATO is not able to wage war against the Russian Federation due to the long stretch of its Western front line and the length of communications for the supply of food, fuel and ammunition for the battle units.

The solution for this problem Friedman proposed by moving military bases directly to the Russian border at several points, as the only possible condition for full deployment of a punitive campaign against Russia, which is rapidly getting out of control of the United States.

And, by the end of the year, this process took place in reality.

So, in mid-December of last year for several days the skies were closed over Zaporozhye, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, and witnesses reported that a large number of transport aircraft, the type of “Hercules” and others landed in Ukrainian airports, bringing the equipment, vehicles and troops, consisting mainly of soldiers of private military companies. The numbers mentioned were about the size of a division from 10 to 15 thousand people, mostly mercenaries from PMC “Academi” (until 2009 it was called Blackwater, owned by Eric Prince, executing orders from the Pentagon).

Previously they were already seen in Donetsk, later in Mariupol. A secret NATO base was set up in  Kharkov oblast: already much has been transported by land, the masks were off and airplanes were involved. Military experts pointed out that some of the equipment and troops was moved from a military base in Hungary near Debretsen. Previously on the territory of Ukraine trains were seen with American armored vehicles, among which were BMPs Bradley, BTRs Stryker and Hummers.

Therefore, the publications of “Stratfor” should be taken seriously.

The document before us is a geopolitical forecast for the next ten years, describing the future of all continents. I will not go into all the details – it has already been done by many analysts.

I will focus on key phrases and what I read between the lines. The article clearly articulates the strategic objective of establishing administrative control over Russia by way of its fragmentation – federalization. Here is a quote:

“To the West from Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania will try to return the regions once lost in the battle with the Russians. They will attempt to annex Ukraine and Belarus. In the South, Russia will lose the ability to control the North Caucasus; Central Asia will begin to destabilize. In the North-West, Karelia will try to return to Finland. In the Far East the coastal regions will start to conduct an independent policy, more associated with Japan, China and the United States, than with Moscow. Other regions will not necessarily seek autonomy, but may get it against their will. Main idea: there will not be a revolt against Moscow, on the contrary, the weakening Moscow will leave a vacuum. In this vacuum the separate fragments of the former Russian Federation will exist.

[Wait, is he talking about Ukraine!? – KR]

This will lead to a major crisis in the next decade. Russia possesses a vast nuclear arsenal, scattered across the country. The decline of the Moscow power will raise the question of control over these missiles and about how to guarantee restraint from their application. This will be a huge challenge for the United States. Washington is the only power, that can solve this problem…”

[So, America throws all its might to destabilize Russia, the end result of which will be loose nukes – Bravo! – KR]

Next, “Stratfor” talks about a necessity to create a stable and economically sustainable government in the nuclear regions, in order to neutralize the missiles by non-military means.

[Only America, the policeman of the world, can be a responsible owner of nuclear weapons – KR]

In the final part of the study the private intelligence agents laid down the fundamental principle of the American doctrine in relation to Russia:

“The US has entered the Cold war early, and (at least in Europe) did not suffer any losses. This is the guiding principle of the American foreign policy, brought almost to perfection: if a hegemon emerges in Europe [I can tell they are fans of Brzezinsky – KR], the US intervenes as early as possible, as during the Cold war, building alliances and positioning troops on the main defensive positions. Now this is done in relation to Russia. <…> The Americans will try to build a system of alliances, parallel to NATO, from the Baltic States to Bulgaria, and engage as many countries as possible. They will try to lure Turkey into the union and stretch it to Azerbaijan. The troops will be send to these countries in proportion to threats.”

[Imagine if Russia tried to enter into military unions with Canada and Mexico? – KR]

The State Department is well aware that under Vladimir Putin the task of federalization is not feasible, as all rehearsals and attempts of Maidan were ineffective and did not find support in society. In addition, the effectiveness of security forces that provide physical order in the capital is undeniable.

Therefore the main task now is to implement technologies of soft power, which include attempts to undermine the economy, the formation of anti-government public opinion through mass media, organizing round tables and conferences, work at universities and nudging the authorities in the provinces to gain more independence from Moscow.

“Stratfor” writes about this: “Given the structure of the Federation, in which profits from exports go first to Moscow, and only then are redirected to local governments, the regions receive a very different amount of this profit. This will lead to the repetition of the Soviet experience in the 1980’s and the 1990’s, when Moscow has lost the ability to maintain state infrastructure. All this will cause the regions to seek solutions independently, forming formal and informal autonomous associations. Economic ties between Moscow and the periphery will weaken.”

Now let us remember that the first public statement after the accession to the post of mayor of Yekaterinburg, Yevgeny Roizman, concerned “injustice that the money goes first to Moscow and then is distributed”, and subsequently a group of people close to Roizman held protests under the slogan “Stop feeding Moscow”. Among the protesters great activity was shown by young people from a foreign agent-NGO “Golos” (“Voice”), headed by the famous “color revolution technologist” Marko Ivkovich from Serbia, who was banned from entering Russia by FSB in 2012.

The fact is, in Russia the vertical of power now ends at the post of a governor, which allows municipalities to implement policies, different from the state, to form their own budgets controlling a city, using large funds to protect their business with security forces and mass media. At the start of the reform of local self-government, which should continue the vertical of power to the cities, the described system will be broken, and the American diplomats will capitalize on the resistance of local “princelings”.

[Not always will a region flourish if it is given more authority from the center. Instead the inherent culture of corruption in Russia may flourish under such arrangement, which will please Russia’s enemies. But of course local authorities will always demand more power and more control over financial flows – KR]

A key objective of the US is to beat Vladimir Putin at 2018 election, for which the entire arsenal of available technologies will be engaged –  marches, lowering of oil prices, political killings – we may likely see, for example, the general director and owner of the anti-Russian TV channel “Dozhd” (“Rain”), Natalia Sindeeva, shot with a bullet with minted initials of Vladimir Putin. History teaches us that often after a strong ruler comes a weak one, and Americans are well aware of it!

An important role, as conceived by the US, is given to the young generation born in 2000, who will turn 18 in 2018, and who had never lived without Putin. Who will they vote for? They did not, as the author of these lines and most of their readers, witness the bloody shoot-outs and cars exploding on the streets in the 90’s, total racketeering of business, pervasive corruption, deliberate destruction of industry, agriculture, army, non-payment of salaries for several months. Today in universities they are told romantic stories about the “real freedom” of that era, although it is appropriate to call it a time of chaos and anarchy. However, in certain ways they are synonymous with the concept of freedom.

In case US looses the next election for the President of Russian Federation, a special tool is prepared: actions of disobedience will take place across the regions, and their exit from the Russian Federation will begin, writes “Stratfor”. Rostislav Ishchenko, president of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting, in his article “It rips at the weakest spot” rightly notes: the revolutionaries in Yekaterinburg don’t even have to storm anything. The municipal authorities already are infiltrated with American collaborators, and the government of the region will not be able to immediately react – it is extremely passive and does not have the political will, and its staff consists of the officials who are keen to outlive one governor after another.

What should be our next steps?

First, we need absolute unification of the country, all the people – around the President and commander-in-chief. I am convinced, that the course taken by Vladimir Putin is completely justified. It assumes full sovereignty in all spheres of life, the priority of the interests of Russia as a determinant of state strategy, productive, mutually beneficial cooperation with countries in Latin America and Asia, uniting them around Russia as a new pole of power on Earth. This course is implemented competently, firmly and consistently, and also accurately. We must strongly support it, thwarting any attempts to split the society from the President by the liberals from the fifth column.

Secondly, the authority of the FSB, whose job is to defend the constitutional rights of citizens and territorial integrity of the state, containing anti-Russian activity, today is clearly lagging behind the demands of the time and the situation in the state, as well as the laws that ensure their authority.

I am talking about such precedents as activities of the notorious member of the Ekaterinburg City Duma and a friend of Yevgeny Roizman – Konstantin Kiselev. Professor of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural State University visited the U.S. and Kiev, lectured on “the utility of” Maidan and positively noting the “contribution” of Yarosh and Turchinov into “the building of the Ukrainian nation”, and even prepared an online conference with the leader of the “Right Sector” in Yekaterinburg.

In this situation, the power structures of Ekaterinburg looked completely toothless: formally no existing article of the criminal code of the Russian Federation applied to the activities of the “political scientist”. If Professor Kiselev called for direct appeals to overthrow the government and seize government buildings or promoted fascism – he could be subjected to the article for extremism, but smart and cautious MP never allowed himself to go that far. Each student, whom the liberal teacher pushed to the “right” frame of thinking, had to make the last step on his own and arrive at the desired conclusion. And the unauthorized contacts with foreign diplomats and agents of Western intelligence, positive coverage of color revolutions, is not a reason to start investigation under the current laws.

Numerous conductors of implementation in Russia of Western values continue their work – “RPR-Parnas”, “Progress Party”, “Civic platform”, “Yabloko”, non-profit organizations “Memorial”, “Voice”, “The Sakharov’s Center”, which this way or another are involved in the preparation of anti-government marches and destabilization of the population, undermining the image of the government, and numerous liberal media supporting them, distorting reality, causing panic. Their activities should be stopped.

If we take the example, as demanded by the liberals, from the United States of America, there after the September 11 terrorist attacks the authority of security structures was expanded. May be it’s our turn? Vladimir Putin has long been waiting for the public opinion to ripen. We already have a full “set” – preparation of color revolutions, assassinations, corruption and the coalition with Americans at local levels. Enough signals to act.

In reality, if we are to withstand the destructive forces, then at a minimum, we should not be weaker. If our special agencies will concede, we will lose in the struggle, and the CIA has historically always been stronger, almost unlimited in their scope of work and generously funded.

We need new legislative initiatives, including the introduction into the criminal code of definitions of activities of the fifth column. Together with public institutions, it is necessary to define appropriate measures of deterrence and punishment.

And the third and main conclusion, we need to start thinking about how to form a new generation of patriotic politicians at all levels of government. Already the US is trying to install their people at key positions. They need to be pushed out, but we need the human resources, and they need to be selected and educated.

To bet the political success only on Vladimir Putin, first of all, puts an enormous strain on him, and secondly, poses a security threat to him personally. We need to appoint its own Putin to each region and municipality, and then any attempts to overthrow the President will lose sense – because his course will be clearly planned and steadily continued at each level.

Our main motto should be: “Today we are all Putin”.

The CANVAS and Right Sector trail in the murder of Nemtsov

Posted on Fort Russ

March 6, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus
Originally published: March 1, 2015

The Serbian trail, stretching from the terrorist attack in Kharkov to the murder of Boris Nemtsov, stands out from under the carpet too much to ignore it. NGO CANVAS, grown from the Serbian maidan organization “Otpor!”, is very heavily involved in Ukraine and now have seriously taken over Russia.

The murder of Boris Nemtsov, whose corpse was found almost at the walls of the Kremlin, is in itself a very extraordinary event for Russia. Never in the Russian Federation there was a murder of a former member of the government, Deputy Prime Minister, a politician who was welcome at the White House and who spoke before the U.S. Congress. The body of this politician, deliberately executed in direct line of sight from the Kremlin, calls for a very serious approach to the murder, the forces behind it and the effects. A serious approach to the situation forces us to carefully consider all the versions of what happened.

On February 28, 2015, on the program “Norkin’s List” (NTV) a well-known political analyst Sergey Kurginyan expressed some thoughts about the murder of Nemtsov:

In particular, Kurginyan said:

“…Yarosh [the leader of the Right Sector”, a radical Ukrainian organization – Ruskom] cooperates with CANVAS, it’s a Serbian – American organization for the implementation of the “orange revolutions”, this organization organized Maidan [in Kiev – Ruskom] and everything else. Now CANVAS is heavily involved in Russia. Boris Nemtsov, unfortunately, said some strange words on February 10th, that he is afraid he will be killed by the authorities [which turned to be a fantasy of the editors – KR]. Immediately after that, the topic was discussed by Yarosh and representatives of CANVAS. Then the representatives of CANVAS came to Russia, among those representatives there is a man, a Serb, “Atsa” is his nickname (Alexander “Atsa” Kazun, lives in the USA, works for CANVAS – Ruskom), who was apprehended for the Kharkov explosion, and then he was released by Turchynov. Isn’t this interesting? Do we really want to know who is behind the murders?”

If we discard all versions except for the most probable – the murder of Nemtsov was supposed to destabilize the situation in Russia before the opposition march on March 1, this destabilization is most needed by the Ukrainian radical organizations, and therefore, Yarosh and the Right Sector. The situation on the fronts of Donbass is such that defeated on all fronts and expelled from Debaltsevo Ukrainian military will not soon recover from the damage and most likely will not be able to recover at all. In this situation a strategically winning solution for the Ukrainian radicals and their Western friends and curators is only a serious destabilization of the situation in Russia.

The focus of certain forces on the course of civil and political terror in Ukraine is evident in the terrorist act that took place in Kharkov on February 23, killing three people and injuring about ten. Ukrainian media of course, immediately, before the start of investigation, rushed to blame the “separatists”, “vatniki” and the Russian security services. There is no faith that the Ukrainian investigation will find the perpetrators, just as there is no hope for the investigation of Maidan snipers, which has taken already a year to no result. But if we think about who benefits from the terror in Ukraine, it is clear that neither Russia nor DPR/LPR can benefit from it.

The terror only benefits Ukrainian radicals and their curators, who thus wish to strengthen the anti-Russian and anti-Donbass mood in the society.

What was extraordinary about the Kharkov explosion?

“…two fighters from the special police battalion group “Kharkov-1” and a girl from the Right Sector, who showed negligence when handling explosives, injuring themselves, were supposed to be evacuated by the group consisting of four people. Strange activity of this group attracted the attention of the police, and the four were arrested. During a search of their minivan it turned out that, that it was unclear how they were going to evacuate their own, when the car was packed full of weapons, including automatic mounted grenade launcher AGS-30 of Russian production. The senior of the group turned out to be a U.S. citizen, presumably, of Serbian decent, Alexander Kazun nicknamed “Atsa” permanently residing in Washington, DC. Place of work: NGO CANVAS. Mr. Kazun was immediately released on the personal order from the Secretary of the Council of National Security and Defense of Ukraine, Aleksandr  Turchinov.”

A capture of a foreign citizen at the place of a terrorist attack looks very suspicious. Even more suspicious is the fact of the release of this citizen, Alexander Kazun, on the order of Alexander Turchynov, who has serious ties with the elites in the USA. And it becomes even more suspicious after understanding what is the NGO CANVAS. Here’s what William Engdahl wrote about it on January 7, 2014 in the article “American NGO involved in the protests in Ukraine”:

“CANVAS: the Belgrade U.S.-funded training organization is behind the carefully organized protests in Kiev. The recent protests in Ukraine stink of an attempt to destabilize the government of Yanukovych, organized from abroad 

After the events in Kharkov the representatives of this organization, engaged in the export of “revolutions” ended up in Moscow. In addition, NGO CANVAS originated from the “bulldozer revolution” in Belgrade in 2000, which overthrew Slobodan Milosevic. The Serbs, who at the time experienced all the “charms” of the coups organized by the West, warned the citizens of Ukraine about those consequences which follow the “peaceful protest against the bloody tyrant” under the cries of “they’re just children!”:

“I live in Belgrade, Serbia, and events in Ukraine remind me of the events in Serbia in the late 1990s and in 2000. In 2000 Western-paid opposition overthrew Slobodan Milosevic, all to our great joy and our great hopes for the future, just because we were tired of the difficult life (or what we perceived as a difficult life at that time) and, in fact, we were naive and duped by Western media (as well as you are today, but let me continue, I will explain this later). Later we realized that it does not work like that – the West did not give us money, did not give us investments, in essence, the West and the European Union did not act like friends at all. Better life never came, and in fact things have gotten worse.

Now, attention! The same people who lied to us and made our “democratic revolution”, are now making YOURS – NGO called “Otpor!” (“Resistance”) in the 1990s, now known as the “CANVAS” – “The Center for the applied nonviolent action and strategies”. Also the usual names and agencies in this show: USAID, Freedom House, The National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros… See for yourself. These are the same people – the oligarchs in Serbia now. They are trained by the CIA, and do their work in Ukraine (and other countries), your Yanukovych even banned some of the many very interesting articles, Ukraine is mentioned in almost every one of them”

Unfortunately, the Ukrainians did not heed the calls of the Serbian people and decided by their bitter experience to test the heavy forces of democracy and breathe the free air of Maidan. In this they were helped by many experts from Serbia (and not only), in particular Marko Ivkovic, the head of the above-mentioned Serbian organization “Otpor!” This was reported by Oleg Tsarev on December 1, 2013 at his page on Facebook:

“The day before yesterday my friend was flying to Ukraine, and in his companion he recognized the well-known organizer of coups and revolutions, Marko Ivkovic. He became famous as the founder of the Serbian “Otpor”, then there were Georgian “Kmara” and Ukrainian “Pora”. Marco tried to organize something similar in Russia, but was extradited and banned from entry. Was in Kyrgyzstan in 2010, when President Bakiyev was ousted there. Now Maidan is in experienced and financially secure hands. Americans do not spare any money on Ivakovic – not so long ago on his projects in Ukraine the National Democratic Institute of the United States provided $1,200,000″.

In 2012, Marko Ivkovic already worked in Ukraine at the National Democratic Institute of USA, operated in contact with the party “Front of Changes” of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, created a public organization “OPORA” to count the votes at elections. Was the unofficial head of the electoral headquarters of Yatsenyuk. The Ukrainian media already in early 2012 hypothesized that Ivkovic was busy preparing “Maidan-2”.

In 2013, right before the aggravation of the situation, Ivkovic arrived to Ukraine on November 29, which was reported by Oleg Tsarev. Next, let’s give a word to the Ukrainian media (publication date September 12, 2013):

“On the eve of the “Popular Assembly,” Arseniy Yatsenyuk and opposition leaders met with Marko Ivkovic – one of the members of the National Democratic Institute, USA. This was reported by the media, citing sources close to Yatsenyuk. The meeting was attended also by Fink Bryne (Gomez) – U.S. citizen, employee of the Agency for International Development, USA. Both U.S. citizens, known as consultants for colored revolutions, came to Ukraine a few weeks ago (Fink Bryne – on October 28). [the spelling of the name may be different in English as it is a translation from Russian – KR]

Now the details of that meeting became known. In particular, it is reported that Marko Ivkovic offered to A. Yatsenyuk, V. Klitschko and O. Tiagnybok to proclaim on the Maidan on Sunday during the “Popular Assembly” a “Manifesto”, according to which to announce the transition of power into the hands of the provisional (until the elections) “people’s government”.

Next was a matter of technique and concerted action. The “People’s government” was supposed to move into the building of the Kiev city administration to use the existing phones of government communications, contact law enforcement agencies and the army calling for support. And also – and this is, perhaps, the most important thing – to contact the embassies of the European countries and the USA with the request for recognition. When it comes to their interests, the United States and Europe, do not waste time with recognition. According to the source, the American Embassy has already prepared the official response with the approval of the actions of the opposition”

Now we know that the January – February events of 2014 in Kiev took place according to the scenario written in December 2013, and therefore, reality confirms the involvement of Serbs and Americans in Kiev events, and the high profile of the organizers of Euromaidan.

Serbian – American consultants of Kiev Euromaidan do not hesitate to use established and successful templates, instructions and practices. For example, the leaflets, which were first used in Belgrade in 2000, then in Cairo in 2011, and then in Kiev in 2013-2014:

NGO CANVAS at first glance at its website seems like a reputable international organization which strongly emphasizes its non-violent character. Now we understand what “non-violent” actions the employee of CANVAS Alexander Kazun, nicknamed “Atsa” was engaged in in Kharkov on February 23 in the car with explosives and automatic grenade launchers and what actions he may have been engaged in in Moscow.

CANVAS operates in Europe, in America, in Africa, and Asia. Tremendous scope for a modest Serbian organization, isn’t it?

Everything falls into place, when we see,  which organizations CANVAS is cooperating with in “developing long-term strategies related to the production of knowledge, tools, and studies of the global nonviolent struggle and the formation of a network of researchers related to the topic of non-violent resistance and strategies”. This is the Air Force Academy of Colorado, the John Hopkins University, and Columbia University. The website of CANVAS shows links to the sites of organizations such as the Institute of Albert Einstein, Freedom House and others, not less “friendly” to Russia:

Words are given to us to conceal our thoughts, and websites – to hide the true extent and details of the activities of organizations. So the sterile website CANVAS will not reveal the real information about their activities. But this data is provided by Wikileaks and other resources.

For example, there is a correspondence between the staff of the American organization Stratfor (private intelligence company of the United States, which is also called “the shadow CIA”), in which “CANVAS” and its leaders are very highly rated:

“This is an impressive group. They come in, operate in a country, and try to topple its regime. When used properly, they are stronger than an aircraft battle group.”

In response to the mention of “aircraft battle group”, Vice President of Stratfor, Fred Burton, sarcastically said that perhaps they should be sent to Iran.

Another letter said that “this organization (CANVAS) gets a lot of American money …I spoke with some people who lobbied for them (CANVAS) to get more money”. It is further specified that the Serbian organization “Otpor!” was funded, in particular, by Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, The Open Society Institute, USAID and the U.S. Institute for Peace. And it is indicated that CANVAS has financial ties with these organizations.

“Otpor!” and then CANVAS are not only mentioned in the correspondence of Stratfor employees, they also have close ties with Stratfor, Goldman Sachs, and the U.S. government. The wife of the leader of CANVAS worked in Stratfor for one year (from March 2010 to March 2011).

Srdja Popovich, the leader of the CANVAS

To put it briefly, CANVAS helps Stratfor in executing the color revolutions, overthrowing any leader hostile to the United States. This is what, according to Wikileaks, the US elite valued in Srdja Popovic and his “Otpor”.

In another letter dated March 2010 Stuart Burton said that CANVAS “is trying to get rid of Chavez,” referring to the late President Hugo Chavez. In 2007, the CANVAS tried to overthrow Chavez with trained activists.

In conclusion we can say that the activists of Serbian “Otpor” in their work used (and use) the models of Gene Sharp, the leading expert on the so-called “non-violent regime change”.

How non-violent are these methods, you can evaluate, judging how Gene Sharp participated in the events in Riga in 1990, advising “Sajudis” (nationalist anti-soviet Latvian organization), and that snipers from “Sajudis” shot (and killed) the demonstrators and the police with the aim to destabilize the Baltic States and cause the collapse of the USSR. These are the “non-violent” methods used in his time by Gene Sharp. Such methods are used by his followers from CANVAS, blowing up rallies in Kharkov and killing politicians in Moscow. Don’t you think this version seems more than logical?

For Russia today a new complex phase began, in which the country can win, and therefore survive only if Russian patriots and responsible citizens will understand the situation in all its complexity and tragedy. For further detailed analysis please see Friend: (Russian)

Ukraine: How can this happen? Here is how.

By Eric Zuesse
Posted on Global Research, February 17, 2015
How can this happen?

Here is how:

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 6.48.31 PM

So: Ukraine’s troops are permitted to steal whatever they want from the residents in Donbass, the rebelling region. The particular victim here lives in an apartment, and so all that Ukraine’s troops can take from him are his belongings.

He’s lucky they didn’t shoot him (if they didn’t).

The cover story in the 4 August 2014 issue of TIME was: “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment: Vladimir Putin backs the rebels …”

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 6.56.26 PM

Would a more-honest news-report have been titled, “In America, Crime Without Punishment: Barack Obama institutes ethnic cleansing in southeast Ukraine”?

Or, perhaps: “Crime Without Punishment: TIME magazine lies about Russia and Ukraine”?

Either way: How can such things as this happen?

Well, both things did — the ethnic cleansing did and does, and the cover-up of it and of its source did and does.

And that’s the biggest uncovered news-story of our time: both the ongoing crime, and its ongoing cover-up.

The present news-report is being distributed to virtually all U.S. ‘news’ media for publication, so that readers of all which do publish it (which can be determined by a google-search of this news-report’s headline) can come to know, from all that do not (show there), which ‘news’ media (other than TIME) are co-conspirators with Obama, in deceiving the American public into hiding reality so as to encourage further movement toward a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia — a nuclear war in which America (and definitely not Russia) was the instigator. (Even the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor acknowledges that the February 2014 overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovuch, which started this, was “the most blatant coup in history” — and it was run from the U.S. White House. It precipitated, as a purely defensive measure by Russia, Russia’s accepting Crimea’s bid to rejoin Russia: Crimea had been since 1783 the base for Russia’s crucial Black Sea fleet, which Obama wanted to kick out of there.)

Any news-media that issue this news-report are honest, because the news-report itself is (and none of them is being charged anything to publish it; so, expense is not involved here). Any that don’t issue it, each reader can judge — and nobody has to wait for a nuclear war in order to do so; the ‘news’ media can be judged right now, because this coup occurred a year ago, and yet still it has not been reported in the U.S. as having been a coup (this overthrow was supposedly instead a result of ‘the democratic Maidan demonstrations’ that were actually used merely as a cover for it).

Furthermore, the present reporter offers to all other journalists the full text of the only thorough investigation that was ever done regarding the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, a rigorous scientific analysis of all of the existing evidence. It concludes exactly as did the European Union’s investigator when he first reported on 26 February 2014 that it had been a coup, which had been perpetrated by “someone” allied with the EU (presumably by the U.S. White House); it shocked Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign-affairs chief, when she learned it from him. This lengthy subsequent independent investigation into the matter is by far the most thorough examination that exists of the event, and it is titled, “The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine.” Its author is University of Ottawa political scientist, Dr. Ivan Katchanovski. Any ‘news’ medium that decides not to publish the present news report about this American international atrocity, and that also does not at least request from me (or from Dr. Katchanovski) that full investigative report by Katchanovski about how this ethnic cleansing started, is clearly not interested in reporting the truth, regarding what is actually the most important international-affairs news-story of the past year, since the February 2014 coup, at least — the only matter that could very possibly end up producing World War III. (Obama wanted a proxy war against Russia to soften them up for the real thing; and the result is all of this bloodshed in Ukraine during and since that coup a year ago.) So: nobody can say that the reason it’s not being reported is that it’s not important news (now become history) to report. It was, and (unfortunately) still is.

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.

Stratfor: Ukraine coup plotted by U.S. due to Russian stance on Syria

From Sputnik News, December 19, 2014

MOSCOW, December 19 (Sputnik) – The United States is behind the February coup in Kiev, which came in response to Russia’s stance on Syria, said George Friedman, the founder and CEO of Stratfor, a global intelligence company.

Russia has repeatedly said that the coup in Kiev was organized by the US, Friedman told Kommersant newspaper. Indeed, it was the most overt coup in history, the political analyst stressed.

The United States decided to act following Russia’s successes in the Middle East, a key region for the US. Americans saw that Russians could influence what was happening in the Middle East, Friedman said. Russians are one of the many challenges in the region that the US faces, he stated. The US thought Russia’s activities were an attempt to harm Washington, the political analyst told the newspaper, adding that events in Ukraine should be viewed in this context.

Russians seem to have underestimated how seriously the US would react to Moscow’s activities in the region and that they would easily respond, Friedman said. The US understood that the thing Russia wants the least is instability in Ukraine, he added.

Related article: Lavrov: Ukraine Freedom Act to Undermine US-Russia Relations for Long Time

The head of Stratfor, also known as “The Shadow CIA,” insisted that Russia’s involvement in Syria was not the only reason for the Ukrainian crisis. However, many in Washington started to perceive Russia as a problem, the expert told the newspaper, adding that at that time the US decided to divert Russia’s attention away from the Middle East.

Syria has been in a civil war since March 2011. Over 100,000 people have died as a result of the armed conflict. Russia repeatedly stated that the election of Syria’s president Bashar Assad was legitimate, and that the people of Syria should control their future. From the beginning of the war the US supported the opposition and stated that the conflict would not be over with Assad in power.