"A brutal gratuitous slaying"

Rick Rozoff

 9-11: US Created Al-Qaeda for Global Domination

September 11 2013 Download audio file

Most people in the world remember the September 11, 2001 very clearly. It was a day when the world changed for the worse, when the world was terrorized and outraged by one of the single worst events in world history. Twelve years later no one has been prosecuted for the event and the world now knows that those events served as a catalyst and pretext for endless wars of aggression and domination against any country not under control of the United States. By attempting to convince the public that every independent, and even Russian leaning country, is somehow connected to terrorism the US has managed to launch wars of aggression against countries that never posed it a threat. The world has grown weary of American aggression. One man who has fought the military expansion of NATO and the US for decades, Voice of Russia regular Rick Rozoff, helped put the events into perspective as the US attempts to engage in yet another war of aggression.

Hello this is John Robles, I am speaking with Rick Rozoff, a regular contributor with the Voice of Russia World Service. We are speaking on the 12 year anniversary of the events of 9/11.

Robles: Hello Rick, how are you?

Rozoff: Very good John, and you?

Robles: I’m very well. It is 9/11 2013. In retrospect can you give us your views regarding those events and how they’ve changed the world and brought us to where we are today?

Rozoff: Sure. If I can be anecdotal to begin with though, I came home from work working the night shift in the emergency room of a hospital, and the attacks on the Trade Tower and the Pentagon occurred in the interim between when I left work and when I returned home.

I returned home to 3 telephone messages, from what I could call the three women of my life: my mother, my only sister and my former lover, and my sister said “are we at war”, my mother said “we have got to change our behavior in the world”, and my former partner stated “did the Palestinians really do it”, because the initial report that many of us heard was that somebody in a phone booth in the Persian Gulf claimed responsibility for the attacks and attributed them to the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is one of the three groups in the Palestine Liberation organization, but one that has never employed hijacking of aero planes, much less terrorist activity.

So, I think that puts things into perspective immediately for me. And then as the emotion started to die down a bit, and the sense of being stunned, I mean the spectacle, and the monstrous loss of life, and then the immediate fear of course, that the wounded beast that was the Pentagon - Donald Rumsfeld at that time - would really wreak vengeance, not only on the alleged perpetrators of the attacks in Washington and New York, but on any number of other countries and in short order if you recall, some of your listeners recall, that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld identified, as I recollect, no fewer than 63 countries who he accused of either harboring terrorists or supporting terrorism.

In the words of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and other members of the administration at that time, that to harbor terrorists was the same as to be a terrorist and you would be dealt with accordingly, and sweeping statements like “you are either with us or with the terrorists”. So, what we all feared I think shortly after the events of 9/11, even as they were occurring in fact, was that the US might exploit this as excuse to settle scores around the world, which in fact happened in short order to the point where even though those accused of perpetrating the attacks - largely Saudi nationals, we should mention, with a Yemeni or Egyptian thrown in for good measure - but ones who had lived for years in Germany and the United States, had gone to flight school in Florida, here and so forth, apparently with complete impunity without any doubts arising in the mind of law enforcement agencies, if we are to believe the official account.

But even though they did not come from Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the other countries that have been attacked in the interim, under the pretext that we were combating the terrorism that led to the events of 9/11, we also have to remember that immediately the Bush administration started identifying as terrorist their political and ideological enemies during the cold war.

So, there was everything from the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, the FARC rebels in Colombia, to the New People’s Army in the Philippines, to the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey. These are left-wing secular movements that were immediately identified as being terrorists, as though they had some connection with Al-Qaeda, which was ludicrous. But what was ignored from the very beginning was the fact that, if in fact there was a connection with Osama bin Laden, that the US bore direct responsibility for his arising to the level of the terrorist commando or chieftain they accused him of being, because he was one of an estimated 10,000 ethnic Arabs that with US and Saudi connivance, in the first place, were brought to north-western Pakistan in the 1980s.

Robles: I’d like to just underline the fact that Osama bin Laden also went by the CIA code name of Tom Osman, he was actually a CIA agent.

Rozoff: That doesn’t surprise me in the least. He was one of 10,000 alleged Afghan Arabs, as the term was, who had training in US-supported training camps in north-western Pakistan to be used against Soviet forces inside Afghanistan, but particularly against the government of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which was the party of long standing, which had members in parliament for decades, part of their coming to power in the April revolution of 1978.

But there would be no Al-Qaeda, there would be no international movement of extremist terrorist network if the US had not connived with their two major military allies in the Islamic world - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - that set it up; and to arm them, to train them, to put them into contact with each other in a global network. And even the name of the Islamic extremists armed group in the Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf group has an Afghan connection as well.

So, the US is really at the genesis … was at the genesis of the creation of this international terrorist network. But another point that struck me at the time of 9/11 of 2001 was that there were only three countries at that time that recognized the originally Taliban government, I mean they didn’t have … weren’t represented at the United Nations, but the Taliban governing entity, whatever you want to call it was only recognized by three governments.

Robles: That never stopped the United States, regarding being recognized in the United Nations. I’d like to recall Kosovo again.

Rozoff: Had they chosen to recognize them, when the rest of the world didn’t, that wouldn’t have been an impediment for the United States. But the three nations that in fact did recognize it, and had embassies in Kabul, were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the 2 nations that worked most closely with the United States to foster the entire Mujahidin organization and movement and war, which in turn spawned the Taliban as surely as night follows day. And the United Arab Emirates.

So, whatever we have seen in the interim, that Pakistan is our major military ally in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan - I mean please - that Saudi Arabia recently signed with the United States the largest bilateral arms deal in history, and that the United Arab Emirates has troops serving under NATO in Afghanistan. United Arab Emirates has troops serving under NATO’s international security assistance force in Afghanistan. They supplied dozens of war planes 2.5 years ago for the 6 months air war against Libya, a secular Arab government.

And these again, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan are the three US military allies pronounced in the Islamic world, whereas they were the only three governments to formally recognize the Taliban in Afghanistan, but again I suppose people … its assumed Americans aren’t informed about international affairs, and if they are, that they quickly forget yesterday’s news.

So that the entire story about 9/11 has not properly been explored, and instead what we have heard I think are two alternate red herrings, one of them was the Donald Rumsfeld, “we’ve got to drain the swamp … we’ve got to eliminate terrorists bases throughout the world including the 63 countries” and even that led by the way to Rumsfeld setting up a Train and Equip Program in the nation of Georgia where terrorists aided and abetted by the United States and its NATO allies were launching attacks into the Russian North Caucasus across both Pankisi Gorge and the Kodori Gorge. And that the Russian government is lodging complaint after complaint with the Georgian government about them, so Rumsfeld says: “well, in fact, yes there are terrorists operating in North Georgia and attacking Russia, so we are going to set up at first with the Green Berets, and then with the US Marine Corps”, what is now a permanent US military presence in Georgia, which was there of course during the 5-day war, 5 years ago last month, when Georgia attacked South Ossetia and dragged Russia into the conflict.

But the other thing, I think too, just to put it in perspective, 9/11 led to the US and NATO invasion of Afghanistan and spreading throughout the south and central Asian region. And what we now have of course is the longest war in the history of the United States; it will be 12 years old very shortly; its actuality the thirteenth calendar year, which is longer than the war in Vietnam.

Robles: Let’s not forget Iraq and all the other humanitarian interventions.

Rozoff: Yes, then gave rise to subsequent wars, their drone missile campaigns in Yemen and Somali and Libya and Iraq and now Syria of course, and the invasion of Afghanistan was the opening salvo in that effort too.

Really to put into practice, as we remembered 12 years ago, blueprints elaborated by the organizations, like Projects for the New American Century, and others, who had plotted to remake a new Middle East, a broader Greater Middle East, which would extend from Mauritania on the Atlantic Ocean to Kazakhstan on the Chinese border, and that is in fact what has happened. But as a result, we’ve seen the US and NATO bring over a 150,000 troops into Afghanistan at the extreme under NATO command, under ISAF, International Security Assistance Force, which is substantially larger than the peak strength of Soviet troops during the 1980s.

And this is then of course is the longest war in the history of Afghanistan as well, and has led to the expansion of US and NATO military bases in presence in countries like Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan for a while. The effort by the United States and its NATO allies to ensconce themselves squarely in the convergence ground of major powers in the area, especially those gathered under the umbrella of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – Russia, China and the Central Asian Republics as well as observers like Iran, Turkey and India.

  Obama’s Empty Claims Against Syria “Imperial Hubris”

September 11 2013   Download audio file

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin called Obama’s claims that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons "unimaginable nonsense" and US Secretary of State John Kerry a liar, and these statements mildly characterize what the United States is attempting to get away with, another Crime Against Peace. The way the United States is attempting to attack another nation based on lies and empty rhetoric as they continue their geopolitical remapping of the world, is a sign of Imperial Hubris. Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff, from Stop NATO, gave his candid reaction to the latest war speech by the US' "omniscient" Commander in Chief.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with regular Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff.

Robles: Hello Sir!

Rozoff: Hello John! It is good to be on your show again.

Robles: Thank you very much for speaking with us again. Your reaction to U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech on Syria?

Rozoff: It was short, there was no new information, to be honest with you, but what was, I think, most disturbing, aside from the almost diabolically self-assured and omniscient demeanor of the Commander in Chief of, again to use his expression, “the world's sole military superpower”, was the fact that he spoke repeatedly about, as everyone knows, their indisputable facts and so forth in relation to the putative or the alleged poison-gas or chemical weapons use in Syria on August of 21st .

His actual terms, if I can bring them up here, suggest that he is privy to information the rest of the world doesn’t have, which is a typical characteristic of Imperial Hubris and we certainly saw that come across in his presentation, statements that all sides agree on the need for action (that is military action against Syria) when, in fact, that’s not the case. This is on text of his address to the nation and, of course, to the world.

I’m reading quotes from the address; "No one disputes that there was a chemical attack in Syria", that’s a quote.

Another quote: "Moreover, we know that the Assad regime was responsible".

He alone, evidently, knows that, because the United Nations inspection team has not filed their report yet. So, we don’t have that to go on.

We have the head of state of Russia, Vladimir Putin referring to that claim as being, and I quote him: “unimaginable nonsense” but somehow Obama and his colleagues in the US Government know everything.

Robles: They keep saying “we know, we know, we know”, I mean Kerry said it 23 times in a recent speech but they haven’t offered any concrete evidence. Have you seen any of this concrete evidence?

I have a friend in England who said that Kerry recently made a reference to the material that was supposed to be on the US State Department’s website and he could not find it, anywhere. This was supposedly some real evidence. Have you seen any real evidence? and then please continue.

Rozoff: No, of course not and moreover, Obama himself, when spending a disproportionate amount of his address talking about, atrocity stories of course, because he knows that’s his trump card for egging on a war.

And again, it’s the equivalent of the so-called Račak Massacre in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo in January of 1999, which was the pretext for the war against that nation, but Obama is simply reiterating, or parroting the sort of information we’ve heard from the State Department’s spokesmen, from Kerry himself, as you alluded to.

You know the statement that “an intercepted telephone call”, I mean, please! This makes the George W. Bush administration look credible, doesn’t it? When a supposed intercepted telephone call, and the trajectory of the rockets that were fired into areas and such like, this is hardly evidence. Much less incontrovertible, or irrefutable evidence, this is instead a hastily concocted pretence.

But nevertheless, in the course of his talk he delves at great length, trying to conjure up in the minds of his listeners and viewers, I suppose, the image of corpses, particularly those of children in the suburbs of Damascus in the incident, whatever the true nature of it proves to be, of August of 21st.

He was pulling on every conceivable heartstring, you know, dead children laid out in rows. “If this can happen to Syrian children, it can happen to American children” and such like. I mean, it was really low demagoguery and it wasn’t even terribly creative.

Robles: He said this could happen to American children too?

Rozoff: He made a statement of that effect, you know, “… if we don’t stop chemical weapons use against the children of Syria, this could someday be American children”.

Robles: So, is he trying to imply that Syria is somehow a threat to America?

Rozoff: It is a very tortured logic, of course but we have to be able to kind of read the code language of the White House and the State Department.

And what we are hearing is: although the Syrian rebels, those who cut out people’s livers and eat them, and videotape it because they are so proud of what they’ve done, or people who kidnap Christian Bishops and hold them if they haven’t tortured them to death and such like are responsible democratic Jeffersonian advocates of liberty, which is basically what Obama asserted; and although there may be the “rare” extremists mixed with them…

And we know that the President of Russia Vladimir Putin called John Kerry what he was – a liar – for repeatedly claiming there were no extremists amongst the rebel factions in Syria.

But what the US has done is reserved the right to claim (talk about this being interesting John) that if the Government of Syria has chemical weapons, they could fall into the hands of extremist rebel groups who could then use them.

The US should know something about that having armed terrorist outfits in Afghanistan and the Balkans and Libya, and so forth. They know that’s exactly what is going to happen.

Robles: There is evidence that they were supplied by the US to these so-called “cannibal rebels”, that’s what I want to call them, and...

Rozoff: And that’s a fitting designation for them, I mean that sums them up perfectly.

And the same sort of Libyan-Islamic-fighting-group-types that killed the US Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi but the US acts like the model of outraged innocence when one of their own terrorist clients occasionally turns against them.

It is occurring incidentally in Afghanistan right now, as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani who were two of the major recipients of US military aid during the war against the Soviets and the Afghan Government in the 1980s. So, this is nothing new. This is an old scenario.

But anyway, what the US is doing is once again playing on both sides of the street. On the one hand, they will accuse the Syrian Government of deliberately and seemingly capriciously, just gratuitously, killing their own citizens.

This is what Russian President Vladimir Putin took issue with, when he referred to the fact that the Syrian Government, scoring pretty substantial and even definitive military victory on the ground, why would they use chemical weapons at this point? And moreover, when there is a UN inspection team in the country, why do it then?

So, the US on the one hand will try to… you know, “as we all know”, as Mr. Obama said again today about the fact that supposedly the Syrian Government… “the facts cannot be denied” (that’s a quote actually from his presentation in regard of the Syrian regime).

Robles: What are those facts?

Rozoff: Again, we know there are no such facts but then, what happens is they turn around and state: “Well, if there are chemical weapons in the control of the Government and the rebels might be able to wrest those weapons away from the Government and use them”.

You know, this is disingenuous to the lowest degree and it is simply one or another Casus Belli, one or another alleged justification for going to war.

Robles: Okay, Rick unfortunately we are out of time. Thank you very much.

US Attack on Syria Will be a Historic Crime

Download audio file

Statesmen, diplomats, leaders and countries worldwide are condemning the United States for their obtuse and entirely self serving desire to launch military aggression against Syria, yet another small and almost defenseless nation that the US wants to decimate with their unparalleled military might as they continue to aggressively bomb and attack every nation that attempts to pursue any king of independent foreign or other policy. Voice of Russia regular Rick Rozoff adds his voice to the growing chorus of people worldwide who are calling on the aggressors to stand down and stop their madness.

Hello, this is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, he’s a regular contributor for The Voice of Russia and the manager and owner of the Stop NATO website and an international mailing list.

Robles: Hello, Rick, how are you?

Rozoff: I am as concerned and as distressed, as I’m sure you and most of the world is currently knowing that we are on the precipice of what could be a disastrous military action by the United States in the Middle East.

Robles: Is it possible that somebody may, at the last moment, talk some sense into those beating-the-war-drums in Washington?

Rozoff: Certainly there have been efforts to do so. Even today such an unlikely person as the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon who was known to have been the United States’ choice for that position and who has generally gone out of his way not to offend Washington in any way, nevertheless reminded the world community and the US, in particular, that there are only two justifications to taking military action against another country.

The first is Article 51 of U.N. Charter that if a country is in imminent danger of attack from the other country, that is self-defense and secondly, if there is authorization through the Security Council. Neither of those criteria, of course, applies in any manner to US plans for military attacks against Syria. That’s number one.

Number two, and I think that is not insignificant, this past Sunday in his weekly address in St. Peter’s Square Pope Francis I, the head of the largest religious organization in the world, the Roman Catholic Church with 1.2 billion adherents, called for an international day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria. And making statements like, and this is from the press agencies, quotes of his talk, stated quote: “War, never again!” And also made the following statement “Violence never leads to peace. War leads to war, violence leads to violence,” this is an almost unprecedented statement by the religious leader by the largest religious faith in history, the Catholic Church.

And this Saturday he is going for an international day of prayer and fasting, not only for the world’s Catholics, his own flock, but other religious believers and even non-believers. That's number two.

Number three, a statement was quoted today by Interfax, the Russian press agency, quoting the Chairman of the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council’s Defense and Security Committee, Viktor Ozerov, and I am quoting him because it is worth getting these words out more broadly than I expect they have, and his quote says: "If we recognize the supremacy of international law and sovereignty of UN member states, the start of the U.S. military actions against Syria bypassing the U.N. Security Council could only mean one thing, another American aggression against an Arab state." More or less echoing, or paralleling the statements by Ban Ki-Moon.

He further over went on to list what this means in terms of escalation of a long-term pattern, and again this is Ozerov speaking, "The aftermath of the U.S. aggressive operations are still fresh in our memory; Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya... The list could be extended. No arguments can be accepted here in defense of democracy or human rights." As the alleged purpose of those wars, my comment.

And he goes on to say, "What is really happening is that Washington cannot agree that countries exist that do not dance to its tune or play by its rules." That’s the end of the quote by the Russian senator. And that, I think That hits it pretty squarely on the head and gets to the gist of the issue.

Syria's crime is not kowtowing to the United States, capitulating to it. And any other countries, and there aren’t many currently, that have the courage to maintain an independent foreign policy, that have close state-to-state diplomatic economic and military ties, with nations like Russia and China, who are also targeted in this.

And in a way how I envision it, John, is that you have the US, as a wolf outside of a pen of sheep and it's selecting them one by one, as to which it's going to devour. And as long as the sheep permit themselves to be picked off individually and sequentially, then all of them eventually are going to be victims.

And what's needed at this point is what even the otherwise fairly timid Ban Ki-Moon has reminded the world of, that at the most the use of military aggression by one state against another and certainly not one which has military superiority that’s almost incalculable, like the United States vis-a-vis Syria, unless in immediate self-defense or with the U.N. Security Council authorization, neither of which is in the offing. And that is the sentiment of Senator Ozerov from the Federation Council, who said exactly the same thing. “That war outside the Security Council threatens the system of international law, the international global order.”

So I think, given the gravity of the situation and the almost unprecedented comments which I just shared with you, by the head of the United Nations, the head of world's largest religious faith and by the chairman of a key committee of the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, that we're looking at something quite serious right now, and that the world needs to be able to marshal all the resources it has; information, organization, moral resources, in order to combat the threat of a war against Syria, which could quite entirely possibly expand into something not only a regional conflict or conflagration, but into something that could be a global showdown.

We've already talked about this, John, repeatedly that the U.S. has exploited the Syrian crisis, to create a new Cold War with Russia, which is now simply indisputable, and on the heels of the cancelled meeting between Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Edward Snowden affair and a number of other things. But what is resting at the base of it, is the U.S. exploiting the Syrian crisis to be berate, denigrate and threaten Russia.

We’ve heard some of the worst rhetoric coming out of Washington vis-a-vis Russia since the Cold War and even worse in certain ways, as we have has ample opportunity to discuss in the past.

So my plea would be that people take to heart very serious, the statements by Ban Ki-Moon, the statements by Viktor Ozerov, the statements by Pope Francis I and realize that something is so severe, so great, so historic at this point that all efforts have to be made between now and, say, the beginning of next week when there's likely to be a vote in both Houses of the U.S. Congress, that world public opinion has to tell Washington, both the legislative and executive branch, "No war! It's against the law internationally! It's a moral crime! And it's an historic crime that will be judged in that manner and its perpetrators will be held accountable!”

Robles: Ok, thank you, Rick! We're out of time! I really appreciate it!

Rozoff: Thank you, John!

US/NATO Attack on Syria Will Cause Regional Conflagration


With what appears to an imminent western military adventure and yet another act of aggression against a small country on the other side of the world, meaning what appears to be the upcoming unprovoked attack on the sovereign nation of Syria by the United States, Rick Rozoff spoke about the military buildup and the reasons for the West’s continued meddling in the Middle East.

Robles: Hello. This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop Nato website and mailing list. Hello, Sir.

Rozoff: Hello, John. How are you?

Robles: Not too good in light of the events that are currently taking place. As I’m sure you’re aware…

Rozoff: I think it is a very dramatic and I fear a tragic moment that we are speaking.

Robles: And it seems like there is very little we can do or that anybody can do to influence what has apparently been in the works and a plan by those geopolitical…

Rozoff: Madmen

Robles: Madmen

Rozoff: … or geniuses that constitutes the foreign policy elite of the United States and other western nations to complete your thought, John.

Robles: Thank you.

Rozoff: Yes. That’s exactly what I fear is the case.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit on the military hardware aspect of this. There is not too many reports out there on that.

Rozoff: We have to keep in mind that, you know, until the people of the Mediterranean basin demand that the US pick up and leave its military, the US is always… the Pentagon is always in position to strike any nation in or near the Mediterranean Sea. But what we do know is that currently assigned to the Sixth Fleet, permanently stationed in the Mediterranean, are no fewer than four guided missile destroyers that are in the eastern part of the Mediterranean even as we speak, including one which played an instrumental role in the opening salvo of cruise missile attacks against Libya in March of 2011.

These are what are referred to in US military parlance as Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. In other words they are the type that will be equipped to carry interceptor missiles, standard missile three, interceptors of the sort that are part of the US missile shield that has been deployed in and around Europe and in the middle East. We know for a fact there are four of those.

There are reports that at least one and possibly two US submarines, and these are the USS Florida and USS Georgia, are deployed off the eastern Mediterranean, each of which … by the way, the Arleigh Burke destroyers I mentioned, the 4 of them, are capable of carrying 70 missiles each. These include cruise as well as other missiles, but the submarines are far more deadly, far more lethal. Each of them is equipped to carry 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
One of these two I mention- USS Florida- was, you know, fired something in the neighborhood of a 100 missiles in the attack against Libya, you know also in the Mediterranean, of course, two and a half years ago. So this is what the US has in play.

bles: Sir, they’re planning to use Tomahawks on Syria, is that correct?

Rozoff: This is what they used of course against Libya two and a half years ago, what they used against Yugoslavia in 1999, it was used against Iraq in 2003. You know, again, it’s a coward’s way of waging warfare. You don’t endanger pilots or fixed wing aircraft by flying strikes into the country. You simply fire a cruise missile.

It has devastating effect, of course. And you don’t endanger the life of any US service men, which in a way we have to hark back to the war against Libya again - 2011 - and the fact that after 60 days of waging war, unprovoked war, against a defenseless nation of some six million people.

According to the War Power Resolution, introduced in the US Congress in the early 1970s, President Barack Obama was obligated to come before Congress and present his case for a continuation of the war. He arrogantly refused to do so, stating in his estimate it was not a war because US military personnel were not in harm’s way.

So you can wreakas much devastation, material and human, as one wants to against a smaller defenseless country, but if US service men aren’t danger themselves and it doesn’t constitute a war then the President of the United States (Commander-in-Chief, US Armed Forces), in his opinion, doesn’t feel obligated even to explain to the US Congress what he is doing. So this is what we are talking about with Syria right now.
We also have to remember that Syria and Lebanon, really now, are the only countries in the entire Mediterranean region that have not become US military partners and US military stooges for the most part. And that each new country that falls into the orbit of the Pentagon becomes a military base for attacks on other countries.

I’ve read reports today that the British military bases in Cyprus are being … you know are seeing warplanes coming in. We know the Soudanaval base in Crete in Greece could be used for any attack against Syria. With a change in government in Cyprus at the beginning of this year we can see an even more compliant client regime willing to do the US’s dirty work.

Robles: What have you heard about Iraq, there were some statements by Iraqi officials that they were against the use of their airspace for an invasion of Syria? And then I’d like you to get into what your views on the aftereffects of what this invasion is going to cause.

Rozoff: It’s standard operating procedure, if you will, for countries you know not to openly acknowledge that they’re granting the US and its allies the right to use their airspace to launch attacks. When we’re talking about the cruise missile attacks, in large part depending on where the vessel, whether a surface vessel, or a submarine is firing them, of necessity Syria has a fairly short coast line compared to Libya and to other countries. And we could count on the fact that a goodly number of the cruise missiles, you know, being fired inside Syria would have to pass over the territory of other countries: Jordan, Iraq, come most immediately to mind.

But of course, if there was plausible deniability, and they simply don’t acknowledge that … Saudi Arabia is another … that the US is firing missiles over their territory then no one is the wiser I suppose. But, in the long run, the regime that was put into power and is beholden to the United States and Baghdad says publicly and what it does in fact I think are two different things. And until there’s a larger community of nations in the world ready to stand up for peace and against armed barbarism, then no one country is going to say no to Washington for fear if nothing else it will be the next target.

And I think if you want a parallel with what’s going on right now, you’ll look at that decade that began say with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China in 1931. It included attack after attack on country after country by the Axis Powers, by imperial Japan, by fascist Italy andby Nazi Germany, which culminated in 1940 with nations like Norway and Denmark, and Greece, and Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France overrun by these hordes of militarists. For ten years the world saw this naked aggression going on, and the League of Nations could not or would not do anything about it.

Robles: That’s what the United States is doing right now and the United Nations which was organized and formed to stop that from happening ever again has done nothing.

Rozoff: It is worse than has done nothing; it is in fact a complicit partner in the arrangement. The Russian government amongst others has been warning over the last 24 hours that any exacerbation of the conflict in Syria by internationalizing it, that is by having major western military powers and their Persian Gulf allies launch military attacks inside Syria is only going to inflame, exacerbate and worsen. The situation is going to cause a massive conflagration not only in Syria but in the surrounding area.

Countries like Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and others are going to be pulled into this maelstrom, into this vortex, inevitably. And what we are seeing now is maybe a culmination of the decades long so-called broader Middle-East initiative of the United States which is simply to remake the political map from the nation of Mauritania on the Atlantic coast to Kazakhstan on the Chinese border and the US is going to throw this entire area into turmoil in furtherance of its own selfish and for the most part undisclosed geopolitical objective.

You were listening to an interview in progress with Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop Nato website and mailing list.

NATO is antithetical to the spirit of the United Nations - PART1

9 June, 2013 02:21  Download audio file

колумбия флаг

Columbia may be on a list for membership in NATO further expanding what was originally a North Atlantic defense organization, into a global offensive military bloc, in effect taking over the world. Rick Rozoff spoke about this and more in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff the owner of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Robles: Hello Rick! How are you?

Rozoff: Very good John, thanks for having me on.

Robles: Can you give us a little bit of your insights into what is going on down there in Columbia? Now NATO seems to be expanding to South America as well?

Rozoff: Yes, I’m glad you raised that issue. It’s been in the news for the last 24 hours or so. And there have been disclaimers being issued already, particularly by the Colombian Government, which I don’t believe wants to acknowledge it. But the story from Agence France-Presse, the French press service quoted some Assistant Secretary State for the State Department, one Roberta Jacobson, stating exactly, here’s the quote: “Our goal is certainly to support Columbia as being a capable and strong member of lots of different international organizations, and that might well include NATO.”

So, the reference was to Columbia, we’ll talk about this in a moment, but her phraseology certainly suggests that not only is Columbia being prepared as a partner for NATO, but conceivably at some point in the future it might be the first country outside of the Euro-Atlantic area, or the North Atlantic Ocean area to become a member of NATO, according to her language.

There’s been some backtracking on that since, particularly by the Columbian Government.

But I think it is important to realize that the last Chief Military Commander of NATO, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, James Stavridis, an American Admiral, who prior to coming to that position as both the European Commander… the top military commander of NATO, was the top military commander for Southern Command, which takes in Latin America as a whole: Central America, South America and the Caribbean. And he had mentioned several months ago that Columbia might well be a troop contributing nation, that’s an official designation by NATO, for the war in Afghanistan.

Though for several years now John, there’ve been reports fairly credible that Columbia had already sent security personnel, as well as troops (regular army troops, counterinsurgency troops to be exact) to Afghanistan to serve under NATO, even if not officially. So, this is simply a consolidation and concretization of a relationship that’s been in the making for some time.

Robles: Isn’t there some problem with the international law or NATO’s own charter to just keep expanding like this?

Rozoff: With the international law no, unless somebody goes to the United Nations, I think it’s long overdue incidentally, and stipulates that no nation or group of nations has the right to form an offensive international military bloc that is waging war, legally or illegally, but certainly aggressively, in three continents over the last 14 years as we know, in Southeastern Europe, South Asia…

Robles: Wasn’t that one of the reasons that the United Nations itself was setup to prevent something like what happened with the Nazi Germany?

Rozoff: You’re exactly correct. Wars of aggression or settling border and other disputes between nations by military means was to have been banned. That was also the intent of the League of Nations after WW I and the Kellog-Briand Treaty, and a number of other efforts.

So, in spirit, if not in direct letter, of the United Nations Charter, of course, NATO is antithetical, contrary to the very spirit, as you’re indicating, of why the United Nations was setup, and to trust NATO’s own charter, if in fact they are or ever were supposedly a defensive military alliance set up to defend nations in Western and to some extent Southern, Europe against the perceived threat from Eastern Europe at that time, then we have to recollect that both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself formally dissolved themselves in 1991, 22 years ago.

So, even if people, more credulous than myself I suppose, believe that NATO has anything to do with being a defensive alliance up until 1991, surely they cannot make that representation, that argument currently.

I think what is significant about Columbia is that although the nation of El Salvador is an official troop contributing nation for the war in Afghanistan with a small contingent serving under NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Columbia, should it be made an official partner of NATO, becomes one on the sixth continent in which NATO will have members and partners.

Obviously, from its inception, in both North America and Europe and subsequent to that there’ve been, in the Mediterranean dialog for example, there are five partner states in North Africa, Libya is soon to be the sixth.

The story that just broke yesterday where; at a defense ministers’ meeting at NATO headquarters, Chuck Hagel the US Defense Secretary and other NATO defense secretaries were talking about NATO offering to train, which is to say build, the armed forces and other security personnel in Libya. So, at least six countries in Africa have, or will shortly have, partnerships with NATO. Same thing in Asia.

And of course Australia is a major NATO ally. It is the second largest non-NATO contributor of troops for the war in Afghanistan, Georgia has now supersceded it as being the first.

So, you have a US-led military alliance that now has, with the inclusion of Columbia, as full members and partners, in every inhabited continent, in every continent but Antarctica. And I actually wrote, a year or more ago, that Columbia, when it joins a broader NATO network around the world, and will do so under the aegis of the newest NATO program called, aptly enough, Partners Across the Globe.

Robles: You’ve predicted all kinds of stuff in the past.

You mentioned Libya a minute ago, what’s the situation right now in Libya? Because the last I heard, it was sinking into a state of anarchy and they were talking about moving in troops, to stabilize the country that was destroyed by their previous invasion.

Rozoff: That’s it, exactly. You know, a six month long NATO bombing campaign and naval blockade had its desired effect.

You are talking about the military of 28 countries, altogether in NATO, representing almost a sixth of the human race with a combined military budget of over a trillion dollars a year, taking on a small, practically defenseless nation, Libya in 2011, and waging a six-month-long so-called operation Unified Protector.

The reason the NATO is now talking about training the security personnel inside Libya, much as it’s done already in Iraq and in Afghanistan, is because the country is devolved into an, almost European 30 Years War sort of scenario, with rival gangs fighting each other, plundering the resources of the country, throwing the country, as you indicate, into turmoil. And it’s been going on for a good two years.

Robles: I remember way back when, I mean, people used to talk about nation building and advanced planning for after these invasions and stuff. They don’t do that anymore, do they? They just go in, take out the leader and who cares what happens afterwards, right?

Rozoff: Yes, you know, “after me the deluge” (Après moi, le déluge) or “after me the catastrophe”, and that’s in fact, that’s a good description of it John. That’s what the Balkans look like, that’s what Iraq looks like, Afghanistan and now Libya, and you know should the West have its way, that’s what Syria would look like, in sort order, you’d have gangs like Al Nusra and others, running rampant, running riot, throughout the country, and throwing it into complete chaos and pandemonium…

Will Syrian “rebels” swear they’re not going to eat someone’s organs? PART2

Download audio file  21 June, 2013 06:48  

The US and its NATO allies are backing what can only be described as murderous cannibalistic savages in Syria but according to Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff: “Apparently, nobody is too gruesome, too ghoulish, too fiendish for the US and its NATO allies not to portray them as freedom fighters, fund them, arm them, train them and bomb the country they're attacking on their behalf.”

Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the owner of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Robles: Advance planning for after these invasions and stuff: they don't do that anymore, do they? They just go in, take out the leader and who cares what happens afterwards, right?

Rozoff: Yes, you know, “after me the deluge” (Après moi, le déluge) or “after me the catastrophe”, and that’s in fact, that’s a good description of it John. That’s what the Balkans look like, that’s what Iraq looks like, Afghanistan and now Libya, and you know should the West have its way, that’s what Syria would look like, in short order, you’d have gangs like Al Nusra and others, running rampant, running riot, throughout the country, and throwing it into complete chaos and pandemonium.

Robles: I'm glad you mentioned Syria. Before we began recording, you mentioned something about President Vladimir Putin and something he said, which I think reflects really well on the situation that the West is promoting in Syria.

Rozoff: Yes, I didn’t get to read the entirety of it but on Interfax today Russian President Vladimir Putin, in discussing the upcoming Geneva meeting on Syria, the one negotiated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and American Secretary of State John Kerry, made the comment, I don’t know off the cuff, or quite directly perhaps, that he hopes that the Western-backed opposition forces don't include in their numbers any cannibals.

And that was clearly an allusion to a videotape that has been making the rounds for the last month or so, where a commander of the so-called “rebel” outfit in Syria (I assume it was a corpse at the time they got started on it) carved up the body of a Syrian soldier identified, they condemned the victim, as having been a member of another branch of Islam, Alawite, and apparently he thought he was eating the heart, I mean he needs some remedial anatomy lessons. But the people who watched the video (I’ve seen it and it it is enough to sicken one) but people watching suggest he actually cut out part of a lung and ate it, red and steaming.

Robles: Oh my God!!

Rozoff: And from what I’ve read subsequent to that, somebody interviewed this very same person about it and he defended that action, and suggested in so many words that the Alawite religious minority in Syria as a whole could face such a fate.

Robles: And these are…? I just want to underline this. These are the same “opposition freedom fighters” quote unquote, that the US wants to arm to the teeth and deliver weapons to?

Rozoff: That’s it, exactly! When the US Senator John McCain, a self-appointed ambassador of war around the world…

Robles: Didn't McCain say that they'll make sure the weapons are only going to the hands of those…what word did he use? The…?

Rozoff: “Moderates, responsible” forces.

What do they do? Take the Scouts Pledge? I mean, they’ll put the hand in the air and swear that they are not fanatics and they are not going to ingest and eat somebody’s internal organs?

I think they obviously know who's going to receive the weapons. But again, if the lessons of Libya, Kosovo, Afghanistan tell us anything – it is that the US not only cannot and will not prevent weapons going into the hands of the most extreme and brutal elements, it will exactly select those elements for the lion’s share of the weapons, as it did with the likes of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and others in Afghanistan in 1980s, as it did with Hashim Thaçi and Ramush Haradinaj and creatures like that in Kosovo in the late 1990s.

So, this is not to be taken seriously. But the fact is, yes, these are exactly the elements that would likely be the beneficiary of US and European arms, with the EU also dropping the ban on weapons for opposition forces within Syria, a move that has been condemned rightly by Russia, amongst other nations.

In the “proud” tradition of the Afghan Mujahidins, supported by the US in the 80s, that skinned the Soviet conscripts alive and threw acid in the face of female teachers while being funded to the tune of billions by the US Government.

Or the organ harvesting and sex slaving, and drugs smuggling Kosovo Liberation Army in the Balkans. And now we are seeing something quite similar in Syria.

Apparently, nobody is too gruesome, too ghoulish, too fiendish for the US and its NATO allies not to portray them as freedom fighters, fund them, arm them, train them and bomb the country they're attacking on their behalf.

Robles: My goodness!

John Kerry, he's made some pretty reasonable sounding statements regarding Syria. He also made some pretty harsh statements to Israel which I found refreshing, I might say.

Rozoff: Yes, he could hardly not appear to be comparatively better, you know, coming on the heels of Hillary Clinton. You know, the devil incarnate, if he were to succeed Clinton, would probably have the world’s sympathy for a short period of time only because of how horrendous his predecessor would have been.

And we have to keep in mind, this is Hilary Clinton who roundly condemned Russia and China saying not long ago – a year ago – that Russia and China would have to "pay a price", that’s a quote from her, vis-a-vis Syria.

She condemned the Russian federal elections in December of 2011 as "being neither free, nor fair”. This is somebody who was on a rampage almost every week ordering some head of state to step down from Ivory Coast to Yemen, from Libya to Syria, so that any modicum of moderation or civility, as Kerry, I agree with you is exhibiting currently, appears all that is much better and contrast to what came before him.

I'm a little bit upset about the statement, however, that the US has now entered late and perhaps so belatedly as to be ineffectual in the process of reaching a political decision in Syria, because that certainly leaves open the prospect that as no diplomatic solution of the crisis inside the country is possible, the US may reserve a military option and intervene in some other manner. But I think you're absolutely correct that those comments were at least an indirect jibe at his predecessor Hilary Clinton, who instead of demanding a regime change and taking the most hostile and uncompromising, and recalcitrant position on the issue, you know, had she even gone through the motions of suggesting genuine diplomatic measures, including at the UN…

Robles: Oh no, she constantly went on and on about the “forceful removal”…. And that's all she wanted to talk about.

Rozoff: That's true. And even if that was the US objective, and clearly it was and remains so, there are certain diplomatic protocols one can abide by in civilized nations, where you don't make it so overtly obvious and you don’t insult other people in the way that she did Russia and China.

I mean truthfully in my life, I’m 60 years of age, and I can remember Secretaries of State going back to the Kennedy administration and perhaps the Eisenhower one, and I can’t remember anyone making statements quite as insulting and uncompromising, and just gratuitously hostile as Clinton, the one I just cited about “Russia and China would have to pay a price”.

Robles: Oh yes! Well, that was one of the more I think moderate ones coming from her.

Rozoff: Yes, this is the same person who, you know, the day after she had gone to Tripoli to order the hit on Muammar Gaddafi, who was in hiding and the following day was killed in a very brutal and appalling manner, and she was shown the picture of his battered and mutilated corpse, and her first comment was: “Wow!” You know, as though you are talking about some 11-year-old girl seeing a new dance step or something. And shortly thereafter she was shown something else on a cell phone and her exact comment was: “We came, we saw he is dead”.

Robles: This was the one she did I think with Barbara Walters, where she was giggling and seemed to be beside herself with joy, right?

Rozoff: That’s it. You know, some pretty adolescent girl on her first date or something, but you are talking about the gruesome murder of a head of state and a man who was almost 70 years of age. This is the sort of person we are talking about.

We also have to recall that Kerry was the Democratic Party nominee for the Presidency in 2004, and he lost. And Clinton, I think it’s no secret, is the front-runner for the democratic nomination three years from now for the presidency. And there may be a certain amount of professional rivalry, resentment on the behalf of Kerry towards Clinton.

He certainly cannot appreciate coming into the State Department and inheriting a good deal of what Ms. Clinton I’m sure has left him, but not that the world unfortunately, really holds Foggy Bottom to account, the way it ought to. And Hilary Clinton still even has a celebrity status around the world for reasons that really defy my imagination.

But, yes, I agree that Kerry's statement seemed to be in some manner an admission that the US diplomacy had been dismally unsuccessful in the question of Syria, and that perhaps it's too late to really do much diplomatically. But I don't think it's the best statement to say ahead of the Geneva meeting that was agreed upon by him and by the Russian Foreign Minister. I think holding out some optimism might not be a bad idea.

Robles: Coming into this Geneva conference, the Foreign Minister of France made statements that he had “no doubt” that chemical weapons” were used” in Syria.

Gennady Gatilov, he's the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, said he doubted the likelihood that there were chemical weapons used in Syria, so far these have been mostly media reports. He's also shed doubts on reports that chemical weapons were intercepted in Turkey that were supposed to have gone to the Syrian opposition.

What do you make of all this chemical weapons talk right before the summit? Mr. Gatilov said all that stuff should be put on a backburner and we should concentrate on convening this summit.

Rozoff: Maybe an effort of sabotage the meeting, in fact. And we have to recall two things, President Barack Obama several months ago talked about the use of chemical weapons by the Government forces. He said nothing about the opposition ones.

In Syria, his expression "a red line" that would have been crossed by the Government in Damascus with the unavoidable conclusion, you know, the weapons of mass destruction, or chemical weapons argument, exactly is an integral part, and really the major justification of the US attack on and the invasion of Iraq ten years ago.

And we are not talking about people who are terribly imaginative or innovative, they are going to use the samecasus belli, the same excuse they used last time for a war, if they can do it.

And the accusation of the Sarin gas or some other chemical weapon is being used by the Syrian Government forces would provide as close an approximation to the excuse of a rationale used to the attack on Iraq 10 years ago as any I can think of.

And then, moreover, as it’s already been identified, as you’ve mentioned, by the Secretary of State and by the President of the United States as being the so-called red line that cannot be crossed, a line on the sand, which would then I suppose permit the United States to circumvent a traditional alleys or avenues of resolution like the United Nations and perhaps just plunge in militarily claiming it was such an emergency situation they had no choice but to act unilaterally. So, it is fraught with dangers certainly.

You were listening to an interview in progress with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the owner of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Visit our website in the near future for the continuation of this interview with Rick Rozoff.

Self-defense has become act of war for the U.S. and NATO PART3

26 June, 13:25  Download audio file

The delivery of S-300 defensive missile batteries to Syria would protect the country from the types of attacks carried out by Israel and the U.S. but the West views such self-defense measures as an act of war and says that the ability of countries not friendly to the U.S. and its allies to defend themselves, in particular Syria, would upset the “balance of power”. Regular Voice of Russia contributor spoke about this, Manning and more in his latest interview with the Voice of Russia.

You are listening to an interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the owner of the Stop NATO website and International Mailing List.

Robles: What is your opinion on S-300s? What can you tell us about S-300s? How will that change the situation?

Rozoff: A retired General stated that with batteries, I think the estimate was 10 to 12 S-300 missiles, that the territory of Syria as a whole would effectively be protected from what are the likely sorts of attacks the United States and Israel would launch against it, which are cruise missiles and missiles launched from aircraft, fixed-wing aircraft, and in that sense give Syria something that the previous victims of US-NATO attacks, Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq, surely did not have, which is effective control of their air-space and the ability to defend their air-force and other military assets from marauding western war planes bombing them.

So, it is very significant if they obtain them. Of course like most of your listeners, I have heard disparate, and at times conflicting, accounts of how imminent the arrival of S-300 is and everything from next year to they’re on their way, there is probably misrepresentation of statements by President Bashar Assad that they are already there.

Then of course there have been statements by Israeli government officials that they “would not tolerate” that. Can you imagine? They “would not tolerate” a sovereign nation Russia, delivering on a contractual agreement to supply strictly defensive weapons.

Robles: That was a 2010 agreement. I just wanted to remind everybody out there. That agreement between Russia and Syria that goes back to 2010 and these are defensive weapons as well. Russia stated that all the contracts were legal, they’re transparent, they don’t go against any international sanctions or anything. These were long ago in the making.

You’ve mentioned Israel as well and several statements were made by prominent politicians and officials in the west that this would upset the balance of power between Israel and Syria. What do you make of that statement? In other words, Israel can’t just bomb Syria with impunity any time it wants or what?

Rozoff: That is exactly how I would interpret that statement, and what a hubristic statement, and the fact that comments like that would be reported dutifully and uncritically by the major press wire services of the west, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if U.S. government officials echoed sentiments of that sort.

The balance of power means: “My side has uncontested superiority over yours, and I can strike your side without having to worry about retaliation”.

Anyone who upsets that balance of power, I mean it is not an equal balance of power is it? It is a very one-sided one. It suggests that; heaven forbid somebody had the audacity to try to defend themselves, because once they do that, then it is a call for direct military attack on them because we can’t allow them the ability to defend their own territory. This is what I hear.

So that means that the old-fashioned notions, if you will, that each country has the right to defend its own territory are no longer operational and that now if you are with the U.S., or one of its major allies, you have the right not only to set up impenetrable missile shields over your country, but you have the right to demand that bordering nations, that they not protect their skies and they not protect themselves and if they do, that is seen as what? An act of war?

Robles: Unbelievable. Rick we haven’t talked about Bradley Manning before but I’d like to get some of your opinions because he did attempt to expose a lot of the stuff that we talk about all the time. What is your opinion on the Bradley Manning case it just started off, his so-called trial, if you want to call it that?

Rozoff: It is a travesty not a trial and it’s drumhead justice, with the “justice” in italic or quotation mark.

He is being prosecuted as an example to others so that anyone within the military with a shred of decency that is appalled by atrocities of the sort that he, the noted video that I think most people are familiar with, was able to help the Wikileaks expose, will think twice about it because they can see the example that has been made out of Manning.

And this is, for a country that prides itself, or dictates rather, to the rest for the world the need of transparency and so forth, and command responsibility, even with the leaders of other nations to conduct trials of this sort is a self-indictment and I think it will go down in history as some of the most infamous show trials.

Robles: They are trying to say that he aided the enemy. Do you know any actual damage that he did or in some way that he actually aided the enemy? Some damage he did to NATO or the west other than revealing crimes and the criminality of their behavior?

Rozoff: I do not. You know that what I’ve read, this is very basic synopsis of it, but the prosecution is claiming that he directly or indirectly, at first hand or second hand, I can’t see how it could be a first hand really, delivered information directly into the hands of our enemies, or words to that effect. That is what I’ve read earlier today.

I don’t know what they could conceivably be speaking about that out there. Unless they are suggesting by releasing information to Wikileaks and that in turn somehow getting on the Internet, that anyone in this world of 7 billion people who has access to the internet could see.

Robles: So, basically what they are saying, is if you have some information, you publish it, if Osama bin Laden had read it, then you are guilty of aiding the enemy.

Rozoff: That is the sort of perverse and reverse logic they are using right now. And first of all that excludes motive, if I had no motive to provide information that would, in any way or form, embolden so-called enemy combatants anywhere in the world, but if inadvertently through no intention and no action on my own such as the result, and I am held accountable for it as though I deliberately intended that to come about.

Robles: We are on the short wave here, probably going out to anybody in the world, penguins in Arctic and little green men on the moon could probably listen to us if they wanted to. Are we giving the enemy information if somebody in Al-Qaeda has a short wave tuned in or they get on a satellite radio or something and tune us in?

Rozoff: I think there is a distinction between information and encouragement and I think what we are getting dangerously close to right now, is that government privacy is now paralleling in many ways very dubious concepts of copyright infringement, the intent of which is to make the dissemination of almost any kind of information illegal. Either it is branded as espionage or as piracy and the idea that something I say may be heard by somebody who passes it on to ten generations of other people and/or different links in the chain and eventually somebody says; “That encourages me to go out and do something violent or illegal”, that is no justification for preventing free speech.

Nobody can control what happens with comments, innocent, peaceful comments that a person makes, how they could be distorted and passed on and viewed inaccurately by a third or a tenth or a hundredth party who then acts on it in some manner.

You know that is so farfetched. Really it shouldn’t be even discussed but in the case of Bradley Manning unfortunately, this is what I understand pretty much to be the case.

If he were the conduit through which information that might not otherwise have appeared on the internet, appears there, and then months or years later somebody sees it and uses that as the pretext, if not as the reason, for doing something that he is exp facto held accountable for what somebody he has never met, has done, seems ludicrous to me, it really does. But it is a frightening precedent of course. And it has a chilling effect on anyone who wants to do disseminate information that the government might find to be inexpedient.

Robles: Are you getting any blowback or feedback or anything from your efforts?

Rozoff: As with anyone in this situation you can well imagine, I have a website Stop NATO and every so often somebody posts comments from the U.S., somewhere from the Defense Department or the British Ministry of Defense most recently and these are people who try to be very chummy as if that they just happened across the website in the course of their reading and take issue with an article or something that is there. But they are clearly information officers and it is their job to troll the internet and to find…

Against the billions of dollars they have to propagandize, billions of dollars they have to conduct operations both overt and covert and to influence people’s thinking, heaven forbid one, there’s one individual sitting with a website some place trying to disseminate contrary information, that person has to be silenced, in the name of “democracy” or “freedom” or “free flow” of information or something.

Robles: They watch everybody. It is crazy.

Rozoff: They have a zero tolerance towards dissent, and that is what the Bradley Manning and the Julian Assange cases really should demonstrate to the world: is that somebody who uses freedom of expression and so forth as an excuse to criticize other governments around the world, will tolerate absolutely no dissent in their own country, and will brand any kind of dissent as being espionage.

Robles: But any dissent anywhere else is ok, it is freedom of speech and democracy.

Rozoff: It is to be applauded. As a matter of fact we were speaking of Hillary Clinton earlier announcing that she was going to tweet in Russian, Chinese, Hindu and Farsi.

Robles: That never worked out, did it?

Rozoff: Evidently the governments of those countries know how to combat a propaganda campaign.

Robles: I mean the State Department couldn’t get the word “restart” right,the wrote “ocerload” so I don’t see how they could actually come up with a legible and intelligent tweet once a day. I think that would be too much.

Rozoff: I believe you are right.

Robles: Especially in 4 or 5 languages. I mean come on, they couldn’t translate one word right.

Rozoff: I’ve seen the State Department stumble over standard English on occasion, I can only imagine how they would do with the foreign tongues.

Robles: Okay. Let’s not… They deserve to be bashed Rick. Anyway, are you still there or what?

Rozoff: I’m still here.

Robles: I thought maybe they cut the line already. Alright, anyway. So we are probably going through Menwith Hill to the NSA and all this so, do you want to say hi to the spooks? No it’s okay, just kidding.

Rozoff: I’ve known them for so long that it’s almost… but who knows?

But you know, there are figures right now, I just saw the NATO analysis of the Syrian situation that even though something like 80% of the Syrian population now supports Assad even if they didn’t before. The ratings have never been higher, that 20% supports the opposition.

So, the numbers are shifting. This is a pragmatic consideration. This is somebody who may have opposed the government 2 years ago but this has been given by the alternative of a bunch of armed gangs running around the country, better the government than anyone else.

Robles: What about the minority populations? There are certain Jewish parts of the population in Syria, Christians, there are Coptics,a host of … There is an Armenian population. How do they all feel about arming these Islamic lunatics? I’m sorry.

Rozoff: I mean the armed extremists, who are in a large part, foreign mercenaries. That is something else we have to recollect. These are not just domestic extremists and others, including cannibals, as we have established. But in many cases, from around the Islamic world, this very much parallels with what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s where the United States and Saudi Arabia helped organize Jihadis from around the world to come to north-west Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan and against Afghanistan.

And we are seeing a parallel that now we have an international mercenary squad with combat experience not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in Russian North Caucuses and the Balkans and North Africa, and the minorities, we have to recall that Syria is an extremely diverse, mosaic of cultures and traditions and religions, confessions. Going back millennia, going back as a matter of fact to 6-7 thousand years, Syria is Mesopotamia. There are a good number of ethnic Syrians to this day in the country.

Robles: What is going to happen to all these… To this wonderful mosaic of humanity? What is going to happen if these insurgents come into power?

Rozoff: We know exactly what is going to happen based on the experiences in Kosovo and Iraq is that the ethnic and religious minorities are going to be terrorized into fleeing the country, they are going to be murdered and persecuted in large numbers.

Several weeks ago 2 Orthodox bishops were kidnapped in Syria and they are still being held incommunicado. One was a Greek Orthodox Bishop, another was a Syriac, you know a Syrian Orthodox Christian Bishop and for all we know they could be dead.

And this is what other religious and ethnic minorities within the country know to expect, in the event of a so-called “rebel” victory in the country.

Much as what we’ve seen in Iraq were prior to the invasion of the country 10 years ago, you had an estimated population of half a million Chrisitans, for the most part Syrians, that number has been cut by 50% with 250,000 who have fled or been killed. And what you see is an ethnic and confessional purging of a country.

The just horrid mass killings in Iraq, which are also similarly motivated, the attacks tend to be overwhelmingly against Shiite Muslims and against Christians, perpetrated by the same kind of Wahhabi extremists backed by Saudi Arabia, backed by the United States.

Similar things have occurred in Kosovo. We do know the groups, apparently the premier fighting force within that armed opposition is Al-Nusra, which is a Wahhabi extremist Saudi-oriented or backed Sunni theocratic fighting force, one the U.S. even dissociates them from, essentially considering it a terrorist organization. But you know, that’s been exactly the model that was used in Afghanistan in the 1980s and subsequently in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and was used in Libya 2 years ago and is being used in Syria now.

You were listening to an interview in progress with Rick Rozoff, the Owner of the Stop NATO website and International Mailing List. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at 

PART1 European Guantanamo or the reason the US wants Serbia to give up Kosovo

17 May, 16:33  Download audio file

Гуантанамо тюрьма решетка арест рука

The U.S. military base in Kosovo was constructed in 1999 without consulting with the government of Serbia and the largest U.S. military base built outside of the U.S. since the Vietnam War. The site was apparently used for extraordinary renditions and has been referred to as a “little Guantanamo”. This is a very little known fact as NATO, the U.S., the European Union and the West are in the process of forcing Serbia to effectively give up Kosovo, and indicates the real motive for the West’s support of the Kosovo Liberation Army which it had deemed a terrorist organization in the past. Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of Stop NATO spoke about this and more in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

Hello! This is John Robles, I'm speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the owner of the stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Robles: Hello Rick! How are you?

Rozoff: Very good John! Thanks for having me on.

Robles: It’s a pleasure to be speaking with you. How much importance would you give to the 200 US-NATO troops being stationed in Italy? And why US-NATO troops? These troops are being stationed for possible operations in Libya. How do you think that reflects on the operations to remove Muammar Gaddafi by the US?

Rozoff: It’s a continuation of that policy, of course. And as it is now, you know, two years ago and two months, 26 months ago that the military campaign against Libya was launched, initially, as we have to recall, by the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) that began it for the first 19 days and then it was taken up by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for six months thereafter. And this meant to signal and meant in fact to be the first activation of AFRICOM as a war fighting force on the African continent, and also the NATO’s first open military incursion on the Africa, and certainly not the last. This was meant to be an opening salvo and not an isolated incident.

What is significant about the impending deployment of what is minimally, and I think we should emphasize, 200 US Marines, and some reports estimate up to 500, these are members of what the US Marine Corps refer to as the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force that only recently was moved into Spain, and then it is being transitioned from Spain into Italy for use in North Africa. So, I think we can see the push to the south and the east to employ State Department slogan or expression of few years ago where the US is going to deploy very shortly four guided missile cruisers to the Naval Station Rota in Spain, a Marine Expeditionary Strike Forces really of the sort we are talking about going to the Sigonella base in Sicily.

This is the same base that the US has another Marine Corps detachment already deployed to. And this is actually a separate one that has already been assigned to the same naval station Sigonella. We should also recall that in the beginning of this year, in January the Governor of Sicily put a stop to plans that the US had for putting on its missile on a satellite surveillance facility in Sicily, on the island.

You know, big plans are afoot and the US is going to move in something called the Mobile User Objective System, global satellite facility, to Sicily. That seems to have been stopped but the troops are coming in, with the avowed purpose John, of intervening in Libya and Benghazi or elsewhere as the U.S. sees fit.

Robles: What exactly is that system that you just mentioned?

Rozoff: The photographs I’ve seen of it suggest that it truly is mobile, I mean it is something comparable to some of the Patriot Advanced Capability Missile Systems that the US has put in Poland and Turkey and Israel. It is described as being a satellite communication system. I’m not sure what precisely it was meant to monitor in Sicily, but I would guess the entire Mediterranean Sea, perhaps most notably part of the eastern Mediterranean. But as to the precise range and purpose of the missile system, I’m not familiar with that.

Robles: I see. So, this is some new technology?

Rozoff: Yes… There are similar ones, that are called Mobile User Objective Systems deployed in Australia, as well as in the US states of Hawaii and Virginia. But I’m not sure how they are integrated with other military capabilities.

Robles: What else has happened with NATO in the last month that you think our listeners should know about?

Rozoff: They’ve had series of meetings of foreign ministers, of chiefs of defense staff and others in the recent months. The focus, according to NATO of course, is wrapping up the Afghan mission which I don’t think will ever be definitively finished. But the drawing down or the eventual phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, the continuation of the operation in Kosovo, the Serbian province (the province wrenched from Serbia), and the continued naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea, what is called operation Active Endeavour, and ongoing, presumably permanent, naval operations in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, the so-called operation Ocean Shield.

So, NATO is still in ways that we have discussed on many an occasion in the past continuing permanent military operations way outside the area of the North Atlantic Ocean, ultimately globally. Nothing outstanding in any particular regard but I think the continuation of these policies.

Robles: How many bases was NATO going to leave in Afghanistan? And what can you tell us about Kosovo, can you give us some details on that as well?

Rozoff: The statement about the US maintaining military bases in Afghanistan after the complete withdrawal of US-NATO troops, well, we can’t say complete, I mean there are estimates that as many as 14,000 US NATO troops will stay in the country; but after the bulk, at one time 152,000 US and other NATO troops in Afghanistan are withdrawn, according to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, the US has clearly indicated to him, I think the word “demanded” would not be too strong a word, that the US or the Pentagon wants to maintain nine military bases inside the country. And they are situated in the north, south, east and west, and that is near the borders of the former Soviet Central Asian Republics, but also Iran and Pakistan, and in some cases not terribly far from the narrow strip of land that connects Afghanistan to China.

And they include of course the major, you know, arguably, at any point in future, strategic air bases like Bagram and Kandahar and Shindand and elsewhere in the country. As we’ve talked about on many occasions I think any sensible person has figured out that the US and its Western allies don’t intend to vacate the southern Central Asian region in the immanent future, if at all.

Robles: You just mentioned Karzai, I was just reminded about his recent revelation that he’d been receiving garbage bags full of money from the CIA for over a decade. Can you comment on that as far as NATO goes? And regarding the US-NATO troops, do you think there is any specific reason why only US-NATO troops are going to be staying in Afghanistan?

Rozoff: Let me start with the second one first because I think it is the easiest. The facts are fairly incontestable, It is not going to be only US troops. The US will maintain 9 military bases evidently, that’s what it intends to do. But NATO itself is transitioning from what is currently known as the International Security Assistance Force, initially it was presented, if you can believe this, under the rubric of a peacekeeping force in the early part of this century, and it quickly devolved into a war fighting force and to a combat force. And once that mission ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) is finished, then NATO will continue in Afghanistan training the Afghan National Army and other security personnel basically to be a Western proxy army in the south Central Asian region. That’s the easy part.

The question about Mr. Karzai being lavished with a good deal of American largesse, that shouldn’t surprise anybody. It is to be assumed I suppose that the US buys off foreign leaders, certainly those it’s implanted in power, like Mr. Karzai, who is not a foreigner, is not an alien to American shores. One of his brothers for example ran, for years, a restaurant pretty much in my neighborhood here in Chicago. And the family, I’m sure, already has a mansion set up in this country to flee to, when they have to, and to take as much of the CIA cash as they can with them back home, repatriate it if you will.

Robles: You mentioned Kosovo a few minutes ago. You said that NATO had met regarding Kosovo and KFOR. Anything new there?

Rozoff: The US and its Western allies, in the later case I’m talking about people in Brussels whether they are wearing the European Union or the NATO hat, it doesn’t seem to matter much, but I’m sure they employed all their typical subversive powers of persuasion to convince the Coalition Government in Belgrade, in Serbia to acknowledge the independence of Kosovo, not formally, practically . And NATO has pretty substantially withdrawn the amount of troops in Kosovo because they turned the province over to their proxy forces there. The former leaders of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, whose leaders are heading up the Kosovo Security Force which is a fledging army being trained by NATO.

So, once the country is turned over to surrogates, the NATO troops can clear out and go on to the next war zone which is effectively what happened since 1999. At one point, in June of 1999 there were 50,000 troops in Kosovo under NATO command or under KFOR, the Kosovo force. And that number has dwindled down to perhaps a tenth of that right now. But the US still maintains Camp Bondsteel and Camp Monteith. The first, Camp Bondsteel is repeatedly the largest overseas U.S. military base built since the war in Vietnam. And there is no indication that it intends to vacate that base. As to what it is doing with it, that’s a question worth pursuing.

Robles: Where is that base?

Rozoff: In Kosovo.

Robles: And you say that’s the largest foreign base that the U.S. has?

Rozoff: What I’ve read and given the acreage, the size of the base, it seems to be the case. It is the largest base that the U.S. has built overseas since the war in Vietnam. Since the 1960s.

Robles: And that’s in Kosovo?

Rozoff: That’s in Kosovo. It was constructed in 1999, I think it was with Kellog Brown and Root, that built the bases almost everywhere else. It’s in Kosovo and it is a fairly mammoth complex. Camp Monteith is a sister base considerably smaller than Bondsteel. But Bondsteel, which is by the way named after a US serviceman who was killed in Vietnam, there’s been speculation that Camp Bondsteel could have been used for extraordinary renditions during the so-called global war on terrorism.

There’s also been discussion from the sources in Russia amongst other places, that should the US want to deploy strategic resources in Camp Bondsteel. And by that we mean either interceptor missiles or perhaps even nuclear weapons. Who would be the wiser and who in the inner circle, Hashim Taci and Pristina, would say “no”.

Robles: When was this base built?

Rozoff: In 1999 it was constructed and it’s been operating ever since. So, you are talking about 14 years now. And there is no indication, you know, unless you accept the US and NATO line, matters have been stabilized in Kosovo and they are going to step down troops, again, which I think they have, I think about 90% of the initial deployment, amount of troops rather, 15,000 troops have been withdrawn but Camp Bondsteel is still there. It is in the eastern part of Kosovo. And in addition to being a US military base it is also NATO headquarters for what’s called Multinational Brigade East.

And ahem… I am looking at the exact size of the place, it is 955 acres. That’s pretty sizeable! And it was built on Serbian land without consulting with the Government of Serbia. I gues the KLA Official in Pristina rubber stamped it. By August of 1999, two months after the US and other NATO troops came into Kosovo, the construction of the base was pretty much under way. Apparently 52 helipads were constructed and shortly thereafter franchise restaurants.

Robles: Right there at the beginning, was it like that it was already constructed as if it would be a permanent fixture?

Rozoff: By all indications exactly that. I cannot see what the motivation would be to build something that large which is still operative to this day…

Robles: You said they had “franchise restaurants” and things like that in there?

Rozoff: I’m looking at it on the computer now. You know, Burger King, Taco Bell and so forth built in there. You know, gymnasiums, health clubs. It is a whole city practically. And evidently, somebody with the Council of Europe, Álvaro Gil-Robles (There’s a name for you John!) Human Rights NEvoy to the Council of Europe, referred to Camp Bondsteel in 2005, and this is a quote: as a “smaller version of Guantanamo” after visiting the facility. So, evidently the US did use it for extraordinary renditions, and so-called black operations or black renditions.

Robles: So, that would give us a very-very-very clear and undisputable reason why the West is so interested in guaranteeing the independence of Kosovo.

Rozoff: Right! And that was the statement made by many of us who opposed the war against Yugoslavia in 1999. When the US constructed that base, it was almost began immediately after the NATO coming into Kosovo, that it was ex post facto proof that the US had military designs in the region and that the war against Yugoslavia was simply an opportunity to expand its military into the region.

Robles: I see.

Rozoff: Which in fact is what has ensued!

PART2 NATO has never offered to cooperate with Russia

23 May, 01:24  Download audio file

NATO has never offered to cooperate with Russia - Rozoff

Western support for KLA terrorists and support for the self-declared independence of Kosovo are part of a pan-Albanian plan for the region, NATO is reaching its tentacles into space and there has never been any real offer of cooperation by NATO to Russia, all of these issues were recently discussed with regular Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.

You're listening to an interview in progress with Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list. You can find part 1 of this interview on our website at

Robles: So they needed a base somewhere in that area, geographically, and Kosovo fit the bill, right?

Rozoff: Fairly much that. Again, I think we have to understand that there's no supervision. There's no oversight in terms of what's going on in Kosovo. Certainly there's no real government in Pristina. I mean the Thaçis and Haradinajs, and these other terrorist cutthroats from the former Kosovo Liberation Army are neither able to question the US, nor would they have any desire to, I mean they are simply puppets.

Robles: Right! That was a terrorist organization and it always was. It never was anything else.

Rozoff: An American official in 1998 Robert Gelbard actually at the time, and he reversed himself subsequently, but at the time stated that the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army was a terrorist organization in his estimate. In fact, it was and is.

I mean it's formally disbanded, but in effect, I'm sure there are late-night-meetings where they get together and reminiscence over dragging people on barbed wire and murdering them to harvest their organs, and dealing in narcotics and women and weapons, and body parts, and so forth. This is the nature of the monsters that the U.S. and its NATO allies have waged war on behalf of.

Robles: That would explain, I think, to a lot of people who might not understand why the U.S. would have supported, what I could describe as Muslim terrorists, against Christian victims.

Rozoff: I would de-emphasize the religious aspect, I truly would, in the sense that: Kosovo was an amazingly rich and diverse mosaic of ethnic and religious cultures prior to the U.S. and NATO intervening. That is in addition to ethnic Albanians who comprise the majority and ethnic Serbs…

Robles: I just mentioned that because even at the time a lot of Americans themselves couldn't understand why the US was supporting Muslims against Christians.

Rozoff: We have to recall that other ethnic minorities: Roma (so called Gypsies), Egyptians, Ashkalies, Bosnians, Gorans, Turks and others who are predominantly Muslim have also been harassed and killed and driven out of the province by Thaçi and his former KLA officials. So, it seems to be more racial. In terms of pan-Albanian than it is religious.

Robles: Do you really think there's that angle there? Or is it just whoever cut a better deal with the United States?

Rozoff: There's Albanian-American Civic League, former U.S. Congressman Joseph DioGuardi is the godfather of that. And he's been amazingly successful at lobbying, and I use that term loosely and perhaps charitably, but influencing American politicians: everyone from Robert Dole to the current Vice President Joseph Biden who is someone who has appeared at the Albanian-American Civic League functions and fundraisers, with hefty honoraria I am sure. And I'm sure Mr. Biden walked away with a lot of money.

I've heard them and I’ve seen the videos on YouTube and some amazingly provocative statements, openly calling for the use of military force against the government of Yugoslavia and Serbia at that time but clearly on behalf of a pan-Albanian agenda. And I think that’s very important to realize, that the five stars on the Kosovo flag supposedly represent five different ethnic groups within the province. But I think the more seasoned observer realizes that that means five different nations in which ethnic Albanians reside and which are envisioned by the likes of Hashim Thaçi to be united in one greater Albania.

Those would of course be not only Kosovo and Albania itself, but parts of Monte-Negro, other parts of Serbia and Macedonia and Greece. So, you have an irredentist expansionist mindset there and you have NATO go to war for 78 days on behalf of that project.

Robles: I see, Rick, we have to move on because I want to ask you a little bit about the US Strategic Command. Now it appears that NATO and the US are planning to not only take over the world, but take over the universe.

Rozoff: Very good! That's it. Do you want me to comment on that?

Robles: Sure, can you give our listeners some details about what is going on with NATO and space, if you would?

Rozoff: That's true, I mean not content with expanding its tentacles around the Earth, now the heavens are going to be an area for NATO expansion. And I'm thinking particularly about a story that came out yesterday, it was issued by the press wire service of the U.S. Armed Forces, what’s called American Forces Press Service from the Pentagon. And a Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, and it is one of nine unified combatant commands the Pentagon has, and most of them tend to be regional in nature: Northern Command, Southern Command, Africa Command and so forth. But this one is strategic and as you are indicating covers not only the entire world, but reaches into space.

Strategic Command was actually… replaced the former Strategic Air Command during the Cold War period. In 1992 it was renamed Strategic Command and then in 2002 it merged with the US Space Command. So, it is a command that takes in all nuclear weapons, you know, strategic forces, the so-called missile defense, which we’ve talked about many times before, that is encircling the planet with interceptor missile systems. But also it takes in the heavens, takes in space.

And the statement was made by the Deputy Commander of the Strategic Command or the report on it was a couple days ago, he is actually the Deputy Director of Global Operation, and he talked about building an alliance in space, partnerships in space comparable to what the U.S. has on earth. So, I think we’d be safe in understanding that being some approximation of a parallel to: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other military alliances the US has.

And again, when you read the Pentagon’s own accounts of these things, often times the statements are amazingly candid, I mean they would be cleaned up appreciably by the time they got to the mainstream media. But this fellow in question, the Deputy Commander of Global Operations, actually this is a paraphrase, but he said that space is vital to military operations providing an array of capabilities that give space-faring nations’ forces’ a military advantage. In other words, if you control space you could win a war on earth. I think it is essentially what he was saying.

And you know, he again drew the parallel that just as on, paraphrasing again on this of the same account, he said: recognizing the value of multinational coalitions for operations in the land, maritime and air domains, the officials of U.S. Strategic Command here, hope to forge a coalition that shares assets and capabilities in space. That’s the opening sentence of the article.

Robles: Listen, one more question, I just recalled this, now, the U.S. made a statement a couple of weeks ago, I don’t know if you recall this, that they were thinking of declassifying some missile parameters to assuage Russia's concerns regarding the ABM shield. Have you heard anything about that? Can you comment on that? Do you think that’s sincere and… any ideas?

Rozoff: I’m vaguely familiar with that. Is it sincere? No it is not. I mean they’ll try to assuage Russian concerns by giving them a sense a false confidence, perhaps.

There is no indication that the United States intends to fully incorporate Russia as a partner, even in regional missile defense systems, such as that in Europe, much less into a global missile system, which Russia would be kept quite clearly outside of.

So, assuaging Russian concerns: that sounds like more talk, to me, and we’ve had several years of that talk without any results.

Robles: I see. This was after the recent Russia-NATO Council meeting. And that was supposed to be one of the results from it, but you think that’s just hot air, right?

Rozoff: It is. It is window dressing, it’s cosmetic and it is meant to make the U.S. and NATO look like they are trying to reach some understanding with the “paranoid recalcitrant” Russia that “refuses to work with them”. We know how these propaganda tricks work and this is simply another indication of it.

So that U.S. and NATO officials can go back and say: “We’ve made repeated offers to our Russian partner which, unfortunately, misinterprets what the intent of the global interceptor missile system is.”

Even though, every now and again Ronald Reagan is invoked or evoked as the inspiration for this program, which means “Strategic Defense Initiative”, which means “Star Wars”.

Robles: I’ve read a news item last week titled something like: “Russia refuses NATO offer of cooperation.” Do you know of any NATO offers of cooperation that Russia has refused?

Rozoff: None whatsoever. There are no such offers. Again, when Russia has asked to, if you will, compartmentalize the missile defense of Europe, to engage into what is called sectoral or regional components where Russia takes responsibility for a certain area, what we hear time and again is: “NATO will not outsource its security to a non-NATO member”, meaning Russia. So, that Russia will have no role whatsoever in any joint or collaborative efforts to create a genuine missile shield, but instead it will be consulted, as you were alluding to at the beginning of the discussion on this subject. Russia will be consulted or, in other words, the U.S. and NATO will tell Russia damn well what they want to tell them and nothing else.

Robles: What exactly would you say to someone who says: “NATO has offered to cooperate with Russia?”

Rozoff: John, we are next-door neighbors and I’m building a shield over my house as I’m arming myself to the teeth. And I’m telling you: “Don’t worry about it because I’m not your enemy”. And your weapons very shortly will not be able to retaliate against me if I should open fire on you first, but… “Don’t worry about it because we are friends and partners”, I mean nobody falls for something like that.

Robles: Okay…

Rozoff: I mean, if you make yourself impregnable, if you make yourself invulnerable as you are moving… Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov again, just three or four days ago, said: “NATO military hardware is moving up to the Russian border”, as indeed it is. And this includes the fact that just a couple of days ago the U.S. moved the first squadron of F-16 strategic fighter jets into Poland for permanent deployment, in a country that borders Russian territory, the Kaliningrad District. And already, as of three years ago, the U.S. moved interceptor missiles into Poland, maybe 35-40 miles from the Russian border.

Robles: I wanted to underline that fact for some people who may not really follow NATO and maybe don’t really know what they are really doing. And people might actually believe that for some reason Russia refused to cooperate. That’s why I just wanted to get that point very well across.

Rozoff: Russia has been begging for genuine cooperation and has been rebuffed at every turn, as again, the U.S. and NATO are saying: “This is our operation and we’ll tell you what we want to about it, but you are not going to influence it in any way or form.”

Robles: Okay. I know that. You know that. I just want to make sure our listeners know that as well.

Rozoff: Good.

Robles: Rick, thank you very much. Unfortunately, we are out of time.

Rozoff: I understand. But thanks again John, I appreciate it.

The US/NATO Want to expand into the Asia-Pacific Region, DPRK Serves That Purpose

4 April, 03:20  Download audio file

US Air Force B-2

213,000 military personnel are involved in live fire training “exercises” involving nuclear capable hardware near North Korea’s borders. Hence it is no surprise North Korea feels threatened. Even if North Korea did not exist as the “evil” threat in the region, the United States would need to create a boogey man to justify its pre-planned military expansion in the Asia-Pacific region. Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff, from Stop NATO, spoke about these things and more in this interview.

I am speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the Owner and Manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Robles: Could we get your views on what is going on currently in North Korea?

Rozoff: Yes, what we are seeing is intensification of saber-rattling, of gunboat diplomacy, by the United States in the first instance, but standing behind is its two major military allies in the area; the Republic of Korea, South Korea, and Japan.

What is going on currently, as many of your listeners may know, is the second part of a two-part annual military exercise that the United States holds with the South Korean government. And those… It’s two parts as I mentioned, first, is something called “Key Resolve,” which started in February, is now completed, and currently now, until the end of April, until the last day of April, is basically a field exercise called “Eagle Foal” F-O-A-L.

And all together this joint exercise… The first is a computer simulated… basically a command-post exercise, and the second is a live-fire field exercise, but all together they entail the participation of 13,000 US military personnel, 200,000 South Korean military personnel “troops.”

What is most alarming about this year’s however, is the fact that in recent days the United States deployed two B-2 Strategic Long-Range Nuclear Bombers, they flew non-stop from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to South Korea to fly over the Korean peninsula. These are nuclear capable bombers, that is they are capable of dropping nuclear payloads.

The US has also deployed or is in the course of deploying B-52s which are also long-range strategic bombers used most infamously in the war against Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s. And most recently we heard that F-22 Stealth Fighter Jets are also being deployed as part of the exercises, and in addition to the USS McCain Guided Missile Warship which is an Aegis-Class, something I think we talked about several times in this program that is, it is equipped to fire the Standard Missile 3 Interceptor Missile.

Robles: The B-2s, was that originally planned as part of the exercises?

Rozoff: I think we can only speculate on whether, or rather at which point the United States decided to deploy the B-2s and whether this was an intentional provocation, you know to up the ante.

The interpretation of course, in the ever obedient western media, obedient that is to the government line; is that this is to assure the South Koreans and perhaps Japan as well, the Japanese government, of US resolve vis-à-vis North Korea and such like.

I mean this is blustering, I don’t think we have to take that seriously. What in fact the US is doing is raising the ante substantially, not simply against North Koreans, you know, it has been my contention, as you know John for years, that North Korean is really: I don’t want to play with words, a “Red Herring”, but it is really a pretext for US military buildup in the Far East and North East Asia, aimed not so much at North Korea, as at China and Russia.

And what we’ve seen in recent days, the new Defense Chief Chuck Hagel, has announced the deployment of 14 more ground-based long-range interceptor missiles to Alaska, all together there will be 30, ostensibly again to exclusively address missile threat from North Korea, which I believe personally is probably exaggerated, I think there is a hyperbolical presentation of the threat posed by North Korea. But nevertheless, at the end of the day the US has consummated the Asia Pacific pivot with a vengence.

Robles: North Korea is making statements themselves that are extremely bellicose, I guess. If they are saying they are going to hit targets in the US, what would you make of those statements?

Rozoff: I would urge caution on two scores, first of all, I don’t know about the reliability of the translation of the North Koreans statements. That is not to say they have not made what are basically blustering statements.

I think it is very simple for a small nation with a fairly ineffectual military to make threats. The rest of the world doesn’t have to take them tremendously seriously. When the US makes threats, the world should take it eminently seriously because the US has delivered on threats in the past, in the recent past.

I think the most important thing to understand here is it is part of a pattern of behavior, that over the last two and a half years or so, where the US clearly, openly has announced that it is going to shift the preponderance of its military might, including first strike capabilities to the Asia Pacific Region, including 60% of Naval Forces, submarines and strategic air forces.

So, if North Korea didn’t exist, it would almost have to be invented, I would argue, according to that scenario. There has to be some alleged reason, or rational, or threat in the region that would permit the United States, first of all, to increase its own military forces in the area but also to consolidate the creation of Asia Pacific analogue of NATO, which has been long in the offing and long in the making.

South Korea, we have to recall, is one of 8 countries that roughly a year ago was announced to be part of North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s latest partnership program, Partners Across the Globe, that’s the name if it. Japan is another. And the Deputy Secretary General of NATO within the last 48-72 hours, I am talking about the former to U.S. Ambassador of Russia Alexander Vershbow, stated openly that if North Korea were to attack the United States, that is an unlikely possibility unless in retaliation, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could invoke its article 5, so called mutual defense clause, meaning the entire 28 nation North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be at war with North Korea.

Robles: What would you make of the translations? I’ve also read some reports but they’ve pretty much been muffled I think and kind of brushed aside that the actual translations were wrong. But then again North Korea has not issued any redactions to those statements.

Rozoff: Much along the lines of what you’ve just said is that, the “red Headlines,” maybe the opening paragraphs stating that the reports that North Korea was prepared to hit the mainland of the United States, or Guam, or Okinawa and so forth, I am sure they are, in the event of a war between the two countries, and let’s keep in mind there is truce, not a peace settlement, technically North Korean, The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and the United States are in a state of armed hostilities, there has never been a formal peace settlement, so when one or the other launches hostilities, it is really a resumption of something that happened 60 years ago rather than something entirely new.

Another factor though that needs to be addressed is the fact that North Korea is one of only 3 countries that borders both Russia and China. The other two are Mongolia and Kazakhstan and the United States and its NATO allies have been extremely aggressive in trying to consolidate their control, including the military sphere, over both Mongolia and Kazakhstan.

"NATO’s global expansion unparalleled in history and fraught with catastrophe." - Rozoff

27 April, 08:45  Download audio file


US controlled NATO dangerously and relentlessly continues its global expansion, "something unparalleled in history and something fraught with, not only danger, but with catastrophe." In order to further hide the fact that the United States is taking over the world militarily through NATO, cleverly designed and marketed "programs" such as the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Partners Across the Globe and the newly created Aspirant Nation category, are being used to hasten their, for the most part quiet, yet massive expansion.

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr Rick Rozoff, the owner and editor of the stop NATO website and mailing list.

Rick Rozoff

Robles: Hello Rick! How are you this afternoon, I suppose it is?

Rozoff: It’s evening here, and is probably morning there, but I’m doing fine. It’s good to talk to you again John.

Robles: Yes, it’s a pleasure to be speaking with you again. NATO’s push into East Asia and Balkan marine training exercises. Can you fill us in on the latest?

Rozoff: Yes, I’m glad you chose those two examples in relation to the formerly North Atlantic Treaty Organization, now essentially redefined by itself and by its main sponsor and director the United States, the Pentagon, you know, as a global military force.

By the Balkans we of are of course talking about Russia’s north-west border, and with the parts of Asia, that the Secretary-General of NATO went to last week, South Korea and Japan, we are talking about north-east Asia. So, you see on either side of the Eurasian landmass, on either side of Russia indeed, the fact that the US is employing NATO as a global military intervention force.

I’ll start with the second one first perhaps. Anders Fogh Rasmussen Secretary-General of NATO made the first-ever-visit by a NATO Secretary-General to the nation of South Korea, the Republic of Korea, where he signed a special partnership program with that nation. This is a country of course, which is still in a, “technically” a state of war with its northern neighbor, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. And it is one where the Deputy Secretary-General of NATO, as we discussed in your program not too long ago, Alexander Vershbow, recently mentioned, or alluded to the fact, and pretty strongly asserted it in fact that; should a military conflict erupt between North and South Korea and the US intervene on behalf the South, that NATO could activate its article 5 mutual military assistance clause and enter the fray against North Korea, which almost inevitably would have to pull China into the vortex and you might have a global conflagration.

But also Rasmussen, after he visited South Korea, went to Japan where he signed a partnership arrangement, or understanding, with Japan as well. And I should mention, something we’ve had occasion to talk about before John, but I don’t think it sunk in properly with a lot of listeners around the world, is that roughly a year ago immediately preceding the NATO Summit in Chicago, from where I’m speaking, NATO announced the launching of its latest military partnership program which is called, and this is a rare bit of candor, it’s called Partners Across the Globe. And it includes four countries in the Asia-Pacific region, which formerly had been referred to by NATO as “Contact Countries” capital C in both cases, who had lent military support, and we are still doing so to this day by the way, for the war in Afghanistan. Those four countries are exactly South Korea and Japan, and also Australia and New Zealand.

But the new Partners Across the Globe, which is just in its infant state, it is likely, if NATO has its way, to expand pretty substantially, includes in addition to the four countries I’ve just mentioned; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia and Iraq, that is all countries in the broader Asia Pacific region.

Robles: If I understand this correctly, South Korea, Japan, you said, New Zealand and Australia, they are now “de facto” NATO members and they fall under article 5?

Rozoff: Not quite. They are NATO partners, now officially NATO partners, under the category of the new Partners Across the Globe, and there is discussion within NATO, particularly within the ruling circles in the United States, I should add, those in the White House, but particularly in the US Senate, the likes of John McCain come to mind, you know, people who are saber-rattling war mongers, to be frank with you, and ones who have mooted the point quite openly, particularly with the five-day war between Georgia and Russia, when Georgia invaded South Ossetia in August of 2008, that what these architects of US and of general Western foreign policy have been advocating is: the application of the article 5 NATO mutual defense clause to NATO partners as well as NATO members.

So, in this case it would in fact apply to Japan or to South Korea, or to that matter to Afghanistan or Pakistan in various scenarios. But what I was laying out earlier was something a little different, that if conflict erupted between the two Koreas and the United States inevitably intervened on behalf of its military client South Korea, and then North Korea responded in any way to the United States: then NATO would do what it did in 2001 after the attacks in New York and Washington DC on September 11th and invoke its article 5 mutual defense clause ostensibly to defend the United States against North Korea.

Robles: Is this official now, they can use article 5?

Rozoff: Since the creation of NATO they can always use article 5 supposedly in defense of any NATO member state. But you know, the discussion now is in terms of partners as well as members. But let me give you an idea of the extent to which things are going on.

At the end of the last month, March, NATO held what it referred to as a military partnership coordination workshop in Bosnia, in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. Bosnia is currently, this is another new category, and there is a proliferation of new NATO categories and partnerships and so forth, but this one is called “Aspirant Nation”, those nations aspiring to NATO membership. And they currently are: Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Georgia.

These are the four countries that NATO has clearly indicated are going to be the next full member states. Of course one could argue that Georgia is not technically in Europe is all. At the end of March this workshop event was held in Bosnia. It included 28 partnership nations from the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and the new Partners Across the Globe.

So, in addition to the 28 NATO member states these are 28 more states. These are, by the way, not all of NATO’s partners around the world by any stretch of the imagination, but 56 nations from around the world under one military command, that US dominated of course.

Again, I hope it gives your listeners an understanding of how, the expanding international NATO network is something unparalleled in history and something fraught with, not only danger, but with catastrophe, if its momentum is not arrested.

As we’ve talked about several times in this show and you have initiated the discussion on more than one occasion, Russia has been seeking assurances from the United States and NATO for at least a decade, that the joint US-NATO interceptor missile system that is already in phase 1, and it is to go through three more phases to take in almost the entire European continent, ostensibly against Iran, and if to believe what Washington and Brussels say, North Korea, which is ludicrous, it is an absurdity, but in fact it is targeting Russia.

Russia has sought assurances that the missile system is not aimed at it. It’s received verbal assurances to that effect but nothing else. And the US and NATO have adamantly refused to engage in what is called sectoral, or at least sort of joint missile defense enterprise, with Russia, which is what Russia has been seeking. Particularly through the NATO-Russia Council which had been in abeyance for several years after the war with Georgia in 2008, with NATO of course supporting Georgia before, during and after the war. And Russia had then not participated in the council but has resumed its participation.

I should mention that with Russia being involved in that bilateral partnership with NATO, that means that every country in Europe, and I really wish your listeners would take this in, every country in Europe, excluding the five micro-states, is either a member of NATO or a member of NATO partnership program.

"Terrorism: It is a duplicitous game which the US is good at playing" - Rozoff

1 May, 12:26  Download audio file

Комитет народного сопротивления Палестина оружие терроризм экстремистские группировки экстремизм боевики

One of the Boston Marathon bombers praised U.S.-backed-terrorists operating in Syria against President Bashar Al-Assad shortly before he set off the bombs which tore through the crowds at the finish line in Boston. Rick Rozoff considers the implications of the fact that these Chechen born terrorists were given asylum by the United States. For the U.S. terrorism is okay when it happens to other countries, especially if it assists in attaining geopolitical goals. Mr. Rozoff from Stop NATO, also talks about plans by NATO, already in place, to pull Syria and Lebanon into NATO once their regimes are changed.

You are listening an interview in progress with Rick Rozoff, the Owner of the Stop NATO website and mailing list. You can find part one on our website at

Rozoff: I really wish your listeners would take this in: that every country in Europe excluding the 5 micro-states, is either a member of NATO or a member of a NATO partnership program, except for at the moment, Cyprus but with the change in government in Cyprus several weeks ago the new administration has indicated clearly they are going to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program, which now means that every European state is either NATO member or NATO partner, every one, bar none!

Robles: I think that is what they wanted.

Rozoff: Of course it is, but if we had had this discussion 20 years ago, and somebody were to tell you in a generation in the future every country in Europe would be…, and we have to remember the anecdote about, at the time, the US Secretary of State James Baker assuring the first and last president of the Soviet Union Michael Gorbachev that NATO, would not expand one inch or one foot or one mile eastward.

Robles: At that point I think we would have agreed that NATO would be dissolved right after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.

Rozoff: But now it has ensconced itself firmly as a political force in East Asia, throughout the Mediterranean, in the South Caucuses, in Central Asia, in the Middle East... One other thing we should mention before I forget, in-between the Baltic States and Northeast Asia, is the Persian Gulf, and in the last week or so, the United Arab Emirates has opened up an Embassy at NATO Headquarters.

NATO has divulged, more than acknowledged, that it has a military training site right now in Kuwait. A NATO delegation recently went to several Persian Gulfs, it has a military partnership, I mentioned earlier, as one of the four that participated in the Bosnia event, that is called the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, set up 9 years ago in 2004, at the NATO summit at Istanbul, Turkey, which has pulled in the Persian Gulf sheikdoms and monarchies in the Gulf Cooperation Council, into a formal military alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

So, now we have NATO: this is the best way I could encapsulize it, NATO is not only aimed at Russia and Russia’s western and southern borders, it is now increasingly situating itself or entering into military partnership with nations facing China, and it is consolidating a military partnership in the Persian Gulf aimed squarely at Iran.

Robles: Anything new with Syria, Israel, this 123 million dollar assistance package for the poor Syrian insurgents?

Rozoff: You perhaps have seen, or many of your listeners have seen or read, the statement that one of the two suspects, the one is killed I believe, in Boston, (at the bombing at the Boston marathon), supposedly hours before, or shortly before his death, posted on his Facebook account or some other site, his support for these anti-government rebels in Syria.

I don’t know if that’s been substantiated but it sounds plausible and it is at precisely that time when the Vice President of the United States, Joseph Biden, announces 123 million dollars in supposedly non-lethal aid to the very Syrian rebels being praised by the mastermind of the bomb attack in Boston last week. So, that’s, I think more than an irony. I think it is an indication about where the US really stands on the question of international terrorism if it affects any country other than itself and its allies.

Robles: So, this terrorist, he was praising the terrorists in Syria that the US is funding?

Rozoff: That is it, exactly.

Robles: We can go back to agent Tom Ossman (Osama Bin Laden), who was created I believe and funded by the US from the beginning, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, I think the whole thing with terrorism and the US is: they have supported it, they’ve backed it, it’s back-fired time and time again.

Rozoff: Backfired at the very least, but I think it is even more insidious than that. It is almost as though a modern day Doctor Frankenstein stitches together some misshapen monster who goes on a killing spree but until he actually assaults the Doctor’s own bride, what he has done is either permitted to occur, or encouraged, or supported. And even after striking the creator’s own homeland, the creator still supports it abroad when it’s convenient because there are cross border and other separatist attacks that really have to be characterized as terrorist, if the word terrorism has any meaning.

Robles: Do you agree that the entire war on terror paradigm requires terrorists to continue existing and the entire militarization of the planet requires an enemy? I mean, if they don’t have one, they’ll have to create one to justify their own existence.

Rozoff: To paraphrase Voltaire: if terrorism didn’t exist it would have to be created, or something, to replace communism after 1991, but I think even more than that, to compare great things to small: every so often you read in the local press, as I read here in Chicago, about some firefighter in the suburban community who has been charged with arson, with the understanding that, the more fire there are, the more work there is for him.

It is far be it for me to openly accuse any particular law enforcement agency of doing that, but it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities that that occurs, and I think this also should be brought to people’s attention: now that Chechnya is on people’s minds because of the attack in Boston, even though it is a real question whether the two young men did it, and I think enterprising journalists, especially investigative-journalists, really ought to find out the history of how the two alleged perpetrators and their family achieved asylum in the United States and whether in fact they didn’t receive political refugee status. And if so, that could only be in reference to alleged Russian government persecution, could it not? I don’t see any other scenario.

Robles: There are many Chechens who have asylum, known cop killers....

Rozoff: Yes, Mr. Tsakaev.

Robles: I mean he was supposedly guilty of killing over 23 police officers.

Rozoff: John, but my point is because of the topicality of the tragedy in Boston, that we have a couple things: we have the fact that the perpetrators may very well have received political refugee status, or family members did, because of alleged persecution by the government of Russia, that is number one.

Number two we do know now, that the Russian government, Russian intelligence, probably the Federal Security Bureau, contacted the FBI 2 years ago, and asked that the older brother be monitored, and the FBI gave them a clean bill of health, let’s do that.

But I am raising another issue that most people haven’t thought about: that after the attacks in the United States on 9/11 of 2001, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at one point, I believe in a telephone conversation mentioned the Kodori Gorge in Georgia, which connects Georgia with Russia.

Russia has been complaining for years that the Georgian government was permitting Chechen and other terrorists to operate out of the Gorge, out of the valley, to launch attacks inside Russia and Rumsfeld mentioned that.

Now at the time I think that was considered to be an effort for him to try enlist Russian support in the so-called “global war on terrorism”, but what in fact occurred, was immediately afterwards the Pentagon, “he”, deployed special forces instructors to Georgia to train the Georgian military, in what is called a “trained and equipp program”, which persists to this day. It was handed over by the Green Berets to the US Marine Corps.

With the fact that the alleged perpetrators in Boston are ethnic Chechens: does this give the United States an opportunity to increase its intelligence and military presence in Georgia and possibly Azerbaijan under the guise of fighting the Chechen terrorists who struck “the heartland of America”. Right?

Robles: After 9/11 they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, even though they were 19 Egyptian terrorists, they didn’t of course invade Egypt and we’re thinking: “Okay, now they’re going to what? Invade Chechnya?”, but this is Russian territory.

Rozoff: They couldn’t openly intervene there. So my suspicion would be again: under the pretense of fighting the very same forces they have backhandedly supported, as you indicate, for the past 28 years, which is Chechen and Dagestani separatists (religious theocratic extremists) that the US will beef up its military presence in Georgia and possibly Azerbaijan. Which is something long under way and which I am sure they had intended, otherwise, this provides the rational for doing so. So, I would be concerned about that.

The US I am sure will: make (how sincere or not) overtures to Russia to help it solve the problem with certain terrorists. As you indicate, not only in London but in Washington, major ethnic Chechen and Dagestani separatist leaders have been granted political asylum, sometimes in rather lucrative positions, with think tanks and other organizations here in the United States as well as Britain.

So, it’s a duplicitous game, that is what the US is good at doing; supporting something backhandedly behind the closed doors in one sense, and openly proclaiming the opposite, it won’t be the first thing that’s occurred.

We should keep in mind since we were talking about Georgia that wha is now called… there is another new phenomenon that people are probably not aware of, something called Black Sea Rotational Force. The US Marine Corps, I believe 3 years ago, set up something called a Black Sea Rotational Force, it is based 6 months of the year in Romania, and its task is to train with, which is to say, to integrate the militaries of 14 nations in the greater Black Sea Region.

But also in the Caucuses, including Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, all of the Balkan States, but also I believe Moldova for sure and I am quite sure Ukraine into the bargain.

But the Black Sea Rotational Force of US marines recently staged joint military exercises with the Georgian armed forces in Agile Spirit, is now going to be deployed, even though it is way out of its area of responsibility, to the Baltic States for this year’s Baltic operations: BALTOPS where they participated last year incidentally.

So, people think that with the budgetary cutbacks resulting from the financial crisis that began almost 5 years ago, that the US is cutting back its military presence around the world. That is not true.

The government of Spain now, has permitted 500 US marines, a US military strike force, and military aircraft to be based in southern Spain for operations in Africa. This is just openly, how I described it.

And this is in addition to the fact that, roughly last year, Spain announced that it would permit the United States to base 4-guided missile destroyers as part of the interceptor missile system, (of Phase 1 of NATO”s interceptor missile system in Europe, to patrol the Mediterranean Sea.

A guided missile destroyer can fire interceptor missiles but can also fire an offensive missile. That is what it was designed for.

These are four more ships in addition to the US 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and NATO’s so-called operation “Active Endeavor” which has been active since 2001 have turned the Mediterranean sea into a private Pentagon-NATO preserve, which it is. And now, as I alluded to earlier, with the last European hold out Cyprus, coming into NATO’s camp and Libya soon to join NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue in the attempt to drag post-Assad Syria and Lebanon into that NATO program turning the entire Mediterranean Sea Basin into NATO’s sea.

Robles: You mean NATO’s already taken steps to pull post-Assad Syria into NATO?

Rozoff: You heard this from me but I’ve been saying it for 2 years. And one thing I did predict before; the fact was that when NATO took over from US-Africa Command, the air war and naval blockade against Libya, 2 years ago, so-called Operation Unified Protector, that at the end of it, Libya which has been the only north African country not a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue. That it would be incorporated into the Mediterranean Dialogue, that fact was stated immediately after the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi by no less authorities than the US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder and the Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen who confirmed that.

Now that would mean that the only two countries in the area of responsibility of the Mediterranean Dialogue would be Lebanon and Syria and I have no question in my mind that they are targeted, after the regime change in both countries, to be incorporated into a NATO program! As, I believe, the United States intends both Yemen and Iraq, to be pulled into the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative with the Persian Gulf monarchies.

Robles: Oh my God! Rick, sorry we have to stop because I have to read the news.

NATO targets hackers and patriotism is a crime if you are not with NATO – Rozoff

23 March, 15:57 1  Download audio file

Anonymous хакер хакеры взлом

In a new directive, the “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization (NATO), has now made it part of its military doctrine to target hackers and hacktivists who are operating for “ideological, political, religious or patriotic” reasons, effectively making patriotism for a country not part of NATO, religion not in keeping with NATO’s approved religion, and anything opposed to NATO and its global expansion a crime and those guilty eligible for assassination by drone. Even George Orwell would have never dreamt up something so “Orwellian”. In an interview regular VOR contributor Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia about this and more.  

I am speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the Owner and Manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list. 

Robles: NATO has been very active lately. Can you give us a few details about what they are up to and maybe a little bit about this new Cyber-War Directive where NATO is declaring hackers military targets?

Rozoff: That is exactly what the new NATO manual identifies hackers as being: as fair game for military attacks, both cyber and otherwise, incidentally.

So, it is not so much retaliation in the cyber sphere strictly, as potentially launching a cruise missile at them, I’m sorry, a drone-fired missile, as one of your guests recently, Bill Blum said about Julian Assange. I believe his words were that; “…there is drone with Julian Assange’s name on it.”

And NATO then reserves the right to launch attacks, cyber and otherwise, on anyone they identify as being a hacktivist, that is hacking into military and even civilian sites in Europe and this is coordinated through what is called a “NATO Center of Excellence on Cyber Affairs” and “cyber warfare” really, in the capital of Estonia, Tallin which was set up directly to confront Russia several years ago after an alleged Russian-based series of attacks on websites in Estonia.

But NATO has been active on a number of other fronts too, as you mentioned in your question. First of all, they have crafted the third or the latest annual national program for the nation of Georgia.

Robles: I am sorry. Can I ask you one question regarding the cyber manual? Is this an official part of military operations or is this just some sort of “draft guidelines” or something?

Rozoff: No, it is official NATO doctrine as of the publication of the manual.

Robles: So, can they actually, seriously, physically, “target” anyone they deem to be a hacker threat with a drone missile?

Rozoff: I didn’t hear them specify they would use “a Hellfire Missile fired from a Predator Drone” but the terminology I’ve seen is that the attacks against the hackers, incidentally anywhere in the world, could be done either: fighting fire with fire, that is through “cyber denial of access” or other attacks, on the hacktivists, or other measures deemed “legal”, is the language I am familiar with.

But we have to keep in mind that the major military power, the founder of NATO and the “prime mover" to this day within it, the United States, reserves a right to use drone missile attacks within its own borders against its own citizens, according to Attorney General Eric Holder of late.

So, it shouldn’t surprise us that the military bloc headed by the United States arrogates to itself the right to launch military attacks, and this is quite in keeping also incidentally, with the US Cyber Command, which has set up in 2010, the first “Cyber Warfare Command” set up in the world, and wherever the US goes, NATO is sure to follow, and very quickly thereafter, so it shouldn’t surprise us.

This was discussed, incidentally, roughly a year ago at the NATO summit in Chicago; that cyber warfare was one of the major components, one of the major emphases that NATO was placing, in the addition to things, “matters” like so-called missile defense: that is interceptor missile programs and the development and extension of the NATO Response Force, for military interventions globally.

It is worth noting that today news also quotes Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO, who was also the commander of US-European Command, Admiral James Stavridis, stating that NATO essentially has contingency plans for replicating the Libyan scenario inside Syria. This is as of today.

As I was about to explain NATO has crafted the latest annual national program for the nation of Georgia. So, NATO is active on a number of fronts, and some of the stories I’ve mentioned indicate: they are way out of the territorial area of responsibility for the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, if they are talking about military actions in Syria, which incidentally follows the report of a couple of days ago, that the US is considering drone strike inside Syria.

So, once again US and NATO are working in tandem. Georgia of course is in the South Caucasus and nowhere near the North-Atlantic Ocean, and hackers anywhere around the world, who are fair game for NATO attack, cyber and otherwise, extend the pervue for NATO operations globally, which is what they have striven for, and what they have arrived at.


Robles: This manual, it says: “…a private citizen, who on his or her own, initiates, engages in hacking for, inter alia: ideological, political, religious or patriotic reasons”, if the hacktivist isn’t working directly within an “official military organization”, NATO says they could “still” be targeted. So, does that mean that “Anonymous” members could be targeted, or bloggers?

Rozoff: I would certainly draw that conclusion, but you see, I would go a step further: when they mention that; if the motives are ideological, political, moral and so forth, then what is to prevent them considering somebody who is selling what they consider to be disinformation, or “inconvenient but accurate” information, then from being a target themselves.

Robles: I could be a target! I mean my views, I think, would fall into all of those areas but…

Rozoff: That is right, any political adversary who is using the Internet in any capacity, counter to what NATO, how NATO envisions the world being structured, technically I suspect. You know as you mentioned, even an individual hacker with no organizational affiliation could, according to the terminology of the excerpt you just read, be considered a target, a potential target.

Robles: Hacking could be almost anything really! I mean it could be someone who’s just downloaded a picture from NATO’s site and added some words to it, or something.

Rozoff: On the NATO website itself it expressly forbids the use of any material, print or image, if in anyway it mocks or ridicules NATO.

So, now it is apparently a crime (copyright laws would be used) but in essence, this is political censorship. If anyone used material, garnered or gleaned, from the NATO site in a way that NATO didn’t approve.

Keeping in mind that North-Atlantic Treaty Organization is a consortium of western military powers that is funded through those governments, of the respective member states of the country, the United States overwhelmingly, and that as a citizen of one of those countries, you do not have the right to use information on those sites even though your tax monies are being used to support it, if NATO determines that you are in some manner, not treating them with proper respect.

So, this is another instance, another example, of the US dominated military bloc, essentially letting the world… “putting the world on notice” rather, that you either toe-the-line or you could be punished!

Robles: This last phrase here, it says; that anyone who initiates, (in hacking), which could be almost anything, for “patriotic” reasons: so that would mean, any person, on the planet, who loves their own country, if it is not a NATO member and who does something on the Internet, could be targetted for NATO assassination?

Rozoff: That certainly how I would interpret that comment and I think you are right to highlight, or to emphasize the world “patriotic”, as though somehow that is an evil motivation, ipso facto, that in the globalized militarized world envisioned by the United States and its NATO allies, if their patriotic sentiments are in opposition to having their country destroyed by NATO rockets and bombs, then they are, by that very fact “criminals”, I suspect, and can be targeted appropriately or correspondingly.

 Hugo Chavez was a humble man who transformed the world

7 March, 12:27    Download audio file

Hugo Chavez was a humble man who transformed the world - Rozoff

Hugo Chavez was a humble man from humble origins who did more than anyone else to lift up and unite the countries and the people of Latin America after being subjugated to decades of US imperialism. He was an inspiration and a beacon who will be sorely missed by many. Hours after the passing of the late President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Rick Rozoff spoke with John Robles about the legacy and the positive changes the late leader single-handedly brought to the world.

Robles: In our discussions of NATO expansion, US imperialistic movements all over the globe, many times we’ve talked about Hugo Chavez and his independence and the way he stood up to the US. Can you give us your opinions of the great achievements of Mr. Hugo Chavez?

Rozoff: The late and very much lamented, Hugo Chavez was a remarkable man but in many ways remarkable despite the fact that he was not remarkable. That is: he was born in a very humble family, one that might even be described as impoverished. He was born in a village. He was of part Indigenous, that is: Native American, Indian background, as well as reportedly of African background.

He was somebody who resembles people like you or me, our parents, our grandparents: people who haven’t gone to elite schools, people who have not been born in privilege and have been selected from birth, if you will, for positions of honor and power. A simple man who applied himself and developed his talents and his abilities, but most of all his dedication.

We have to remember that his election as President of Venezuela in 1999 set the stage for, heralded, a whole series of election victories and transformations throughout Latin America, Central as well as South America, in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Nicaragua, El Salvador, that he himself was the prime mover in setting up what is known by the acronym of ALBA (The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) that he was the prime mover in setting up something by the acronym of CELAC (The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), the Bank of the South, TeleSur (the television network for the South America).

It was this one man instrumental in turning the tide of Latin America and in many ways of the southern hemisphere of the world that has been wracked by the neoliberalism of the 1990s.

And his actions have been described, I think very accurately John, as having, on his initiative that we have seen the reversal of 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine.

A few years ago when Russian and Venezuelan vessels participated in a joint naval exercise in the Caribbean. It was exactly in that context, it was remarked that this had basically reversed the 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine, that is of Washington and the United States claiming exclusive sphere of influence throughout the entire western hemisphere.

And that this was the doing of Hugo Chavez, this humble former soldier, who became 14-year-president of Venezuela, one who read distributed the wealth from petroleum and other industries in the country to benefit the agrarian, as well as the rural poor, or offered major economic assistance, including to subsidize energy deals with countries throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, even with parts of the United States, as a matter of fact, New York City.

He reconfigured the power relationships not only in the Western Hemisphere, but globally, in a way that could not had been foreseen.

You know, the head of state of a country that isn’t a tremendously large one, isn’t a tremendously powerful one, certainly not in military terms, but this is a man who made frequent visits to Russia, to the African continent, to the Middle East, to China, who cultivated relationships with the emerging multi-polar world, particularly those nations represented in BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, Russia, China and South Africa. And he was arguably the most persuasive advocate for a newly emerging system of multi-polarity in the world, of anyone I know.


Robles: Let me ask you about Nicolas Maduro the Vice President. Yesterday he said that Hugo Chavez’s cancer was part of a conspiracy against him and basically he had been poisoned by enemies.

He also expelled two US military attachés from the country. Would you care to speculate on those accusations, thta he made?

Rozoff: On the first accusation, you know that the suspicious incidents of cancer amongst independent Latin American heads of state; in Argentina, in Bolivia, earlier in Brazil, in Venezuela, even one can argue, with Fidel Castro in Cuba, that there certainly is room for legitimate suspicion and investigation.

I might recommend a book that was published in the last couple of years with the intriguing title “Mary’s Monkey”, a book written about the late Mary Sherman and about CIA linked operations in the early 1960s to actually develop the types of cancer for use against political adversaries. So, it’s not that far-fetched an accusation.

On the second score, the fact that the two US Embassy personnel have been declared persona-non-grata and expelled from, or invited to leave Venezuela, I think what is of most concern to us right now is the fact that, should a new election be held because of the death of Hugo Chavez, that the United States would certainly kick into high gear the entire color revolution operation that has been employed in the past; in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lebanon and so forth. But we may see it done on a much more ambitious scale even than we saw in the countries that I’ve just mentioned, just as Venezuela has been the bellwether, has been the prototype for the transformation that has occurred throughout Latin America in the last 14 years. So, the US sees it, I suppose as the transformation, the revolution, that needs to be reversed first.

Robles: Rick, if we could maybe about a minute more and I really appreciate you speaking with me at this late hour.

Rozoff: Thank you for the opportunity.

You know, I think when talking about somebody like Chavez, who again was as humble and unpretentious person as any of us could hope to be, that in speaking of him nevertheless, you know it is almost a paradox, I am reminded of the lines in the Bible, in the Gospel, that I don’t feel worthy to lace his sandals.

I mean I can pay him a tribute, but it’s a tribute of a very simple person who was immensely grateful and stands in eternal admiration of everything that he has done.

 And all the people that he has made enthusiastic about the process that he in many ways initiated, and that his faith and the faith that he has instilled in them will continue. And I’m very much saddened with his demise. I’m very proud of his accomplishments.

I’m very confident that Latin America and the world will continue towards a world that is really worthy of mankind.

 Iran's drones would serve Washington right

15 February, 11:14   Download audio file

Iran's drones would serve Washington right - Rozoff

NATO continues to surround the Russian Federation with their missiles, which according to Mr. Rozoff, may soon number in the thousands and NATO also continues to aggressively seek to "integrate" country after country into their "alliance". Rick tells us why the Western media has gone quiet on Syria and comments on the fact that Iran is now producing its own drones, which were reversed engineered from captured American drones. As always Rick has his finger on the pulse.

Robles: Can you give our listeners an update on the latest happenings with NATO please?

Rozoff: Yes. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is continuing its expansion, at least its efforts to expand globally. Within the last few days we’ve seen overtures made by leading NATO officials to previously neutral countries like Ireland, Finland, Sweden in efforts to recruit them into the alliance.

The Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in Ireland now, but prior to departing for Ireland, which historically has been a neutral nation during the Cold War, he gave an interview to the Irish Times where he extended an invitation essentially for Ireland to join NATO as a full member.

The Deputy Commander of Allied Command Transformation, the NATO command in the United States in Norfolk Virginia, within the last week or two as well, has welcomed Finland which borders Russia, as a strategic partner of NATO and talked about the further integration of that nation into the NATO sphere of influence and military operations.

And then the commander of the military forces, the top commander in Sweden a couple of days ago made a very provocative statement to the effect that if a war ensued between Sweden and Russia (How probable is that, right?) that Sweden wouldn’t last two days against Russia’s military might and that’s why Sweden needs to be in NATO.

So, as we are seeing there is a concerted effort to consolidate North Atlantic Treaty Organization control over the entire European continent, I mean they are not going to rest until every nation has been pulled in it as a full member. So, we have that going on.

And then we have, although not formally a NATO operation, we have the French military campaign in Mali in northwest Africa with the active assistance of the US, Britain, Germany and other major NATO powers. And so, you know, just off the top of my head, I mean that’s what is going on with NATO: it is consolidating its domination of Europe and it is extending its reach outside of Europe to the point where, an official with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, recently stated that NATO is basically, I don’t want to say a three-ring circus, but something to that effect, saying that there is a ring that is Europe and there is beyond that ring Asia and Africa (this is from Mark Jacobson an Atlantasist think tank expert).

So, we see the persistence of the US dominated military bloc’s efforts to extend itself. As a matter of fact, something I don’t want to forget, the current Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko said a couple of days ago at a meeting in NATO headquarters, that Russia would not tolerate NATO declaring itself and functioning as, I believe his words were “an international energy security guarantor”, which is another role that NATO has arrogated onto itself.


Robles: Can you tell us anything about, there were reports last week that the infamous missile shield, including Romanian installations, was not workable? Have you heard anything about that?

Rozoff: Yes, there were reports to that effect and one wonders, you know, if these are calculated leaks or if they have any authenticity. I don’t know. But you might recall there were similar concerns expressed about the earlier George W. Bush Administration’s plans for interceptor missiles in Poland that are called ground-based midcourse interceptors. But the concerns that you’ve read or you are alluding to rather are premised on the fact that Iran is supposedly going to be able to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles that need interception in places like Romania and Poland, and I would argue that’s an absurd contention in the first place. So, the basic premises and the conclusions drawn from them would be similarly inaccurate. So, I wouldn’t give too much credence to those reports. The US is still going ahead them.

As a matter of fact in a recent statement by Anders Fogh Rasmussen “the NATO chieftain”, he boasted particularly about the missile defense “so called” or the interceptor missile system as being, as he put it, at the core of NATO’s defense posture.

He boasted about the deployment of 6 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Interceptor Missile Batteries to southeastern Turkey which have now come unde formal NATO command and control. And he also talked about European countries emulating or joining the US by providing warship with interceptor missile radar and with the interceptor missiles themselves.

We should keep in mind, and I don’t know how well it is known in Russia and elsewhere, is that the United States currently has 62 what are called Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers and 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, that is altogether 84 warships, that currently, at least the destroyers, can carry as many as 90 missiles apiece.

And it is precisely these ships that are now referred to as Aegis-Class or are in the process of becoming such: that is are equipped to carry, or will be carrying, standard Missile-3Interceptor Missiles of the sort that are going to be based on the ground in Poland and Romania from 2015 to 2018. But the 48 missiles that are going to be in Poland and Romania, 24 apiece, are a formidable challenge enough to Russia. But the fact that there may be several hundred, even thousands, of missiles placed on the US cruisers and destroyers is a much more serious consideration.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit about what is going on with Syria right now? Everything’s gotten real quiet. After they’ve put those missiles in Turkey, the Patriots you just spoke about, and as we’ve said in the past in our discussions: when they go quiet something is up.

Rozoff: I know what you are talking about John. Watching old adventure films whenever the insects and the animals in the forest or the jungle became quiet, you became nervous. And a situation similar to that I’m sure is obtaining in relation to Syria.

We also have to remember though there is a changing of the guard in Washington. With the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who more than anyone else I’m sure has been instrumental in pushing through a campaign of regime change in Damascus, out and John Kerry replacing her as the chief foreign policy diplomat in the US, similarly with the Pentagon with Defense Secretary and with the CIA Director.

So, there may be a short reprise for Damascus, for Syria at this point until the second term Obama Administration’s foreign policy team is in place in which case we may see even mounting offensive again.

Robles: There were reports we’ve just had that Iran captured a US drone, last year, and they reverse engineered it and are now producing massive quantities of their own drones.

Rozoff: It would serve Washington right if they did, I mean it truthfully would. The US has pioneered international drone warfare, this is something it has developed over the last decade, actually over the last 12 years. It is a new form of warfare, it is global in scope, it is deadly as we know.

You were listening to an interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff the manager of the stop NATO website and mailing list.

Visit our site in the near future for part 2 of this talk.

Countries will start to shoot down US drones

26 February, 14:31 10 

Download audio file

The world is just starting to take notice of the expansion of US drone usage worldwide. US drones are becoming increasingly larger, deadlier and greater in number (now at approximately 8,000) and pose a threat to world peace. In addition for NATO’s AFRICOM and the US, Mali is important due to its strategic location near uranium reserves, hence the recent military operations in the country, which are characterized as another “energy grab” by Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff.

This is John Robles. I am speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the Owner, Manager and Editor of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.

Part I

This is part 2 of an interview in progress.

1Robles: There were reports that Iran captured a US drone last year and they reverse-engineered it and are now producing massive quantities of their own drones. Would you like to comment on that?

Rozoff: It would serve Washington right if they did, I mean it truthfully would. The US has pioneered international drone warfare, this is something that has developed over the last decade, actually over the last 12 years. It is a new form of warfare, it is global in scope, it is deadly, as we know.

My personal estimates are the amount of people killed by the drone missile attacks, Hellfire missiles fired by drones in no fewer than 6 countries at this point John: in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000, by some accounts including Pakistan’s Dawn Newspaper a couple of years ago, they estimated the 96% of those killed in Pakistan were civilians and had no connection with Al-Qaeda.

So, the fact that the US is covering the globe, including our own country I fear, with surveillance drones, but also with lethal drones capable of firing missiles, is something the world should counteract, and if one of their drones gets taken down and is duplicated by another country, I don’t see how the US could complain, except for copyright violations.

Robles: How are they going to react if one day Iran decides to assassinate somebody in the United States with the drone?

Rozoff: That’s an unlikely possibility. Unfortunately, there is only one nation that has done that, at least on any scale. I don’t know what Israel has done in that respect with their drones but I believe that the US is really alone.

And we have to keep in mind incidentally that in the year where the so-called “Global War on Terror” was inaugurated, or launched, in 2001, the Pentagon had 200 drones in its arsenal, these are almost entirely surveillance drones.

As of last year the estimate is the Pentagon had 8,000 drones, which is a 40 fold increase.

These are increasingly larger, capable of carrying more, and larger, and more lethal weaponry, we are talking for example about the Predator drone, the most common one, now being superseded by the Raptor and perhaps even more sophisticated and deadly versions of unmanned aerial vehicles in the future.

So, this is something the world is finally, a bit belatedly, taking note of: is that once again one country and one country only reserves to itself the right to launch aerial assassinations around the globe without having to account to its own laws in Congress, much less to the international community.

Robles: So, you don’t think it is possible that in the coming years other countries will start countering US drone strikes with their own?

Rozoff: I think they will shoot them down, I mean as has happened in Afghanistan. It was brought down by the Iranians evidently according to the account you related.

There will be anti-drone measures taken by other countries. I don’t know of any other country that advances the interest targeting people for murder around the world.

Robles: Sure, they could start targeting the people who are running the drone programs as being a threat to their citizens.

Rozoff: I would hate to speculate on that score and I would probably end up in penitentiary somewhere if I did. Sorry. (coughs)

Robles: Let’s not do that.


Rozoff: We do have to see that the US is substantively engaged in supporting the French military operation, indeed the French “war” in Mali, that US aircraft are refueling French war planes, Rafaels and Mirages, for air attacks inside the country, US cargo planes are transporting… the US Air Force is running an operation in France to transport troops and material including weapons inside Mali for the campaign.

And we have to recall that the US military has been involved in Mali itself for several years now. An incident perhaps four or five, perhaps even more, years ago, occurred where a US military transport plane was shot at, and caught fire, that is, from gunfire from the ground by Tuareg Rebels in the north where the US was aiding and abetting the government of Mali against the rebels in the north, engaged in the counterinsurgency war.

So, that is something not new to the United States and that is part of what is called Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative, which is a misnomer, it grew out of the Pan Sahel Initiative of the US state department supposedly to combat Islamic terrorism in the Sahel Region, that is the area south of the Sahara Desert, that runs all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the horn of Africa, that is very strategically vital part of the world, and US-Africa Command, AFRICOM, has run any number of special forces war games, you know, military exercises in Mali, but in the general region under the code name of Operation Flintlock, so the US has been involved pretty substantially in that.

The same US air units that are supporting the French in Mali currently are those who supported AFRICOM and NATO’s war against Libya two years ago. You know, operating out of Britain in the first place.

So, what we see is further expansion of military operations inside Africa, which have included in recent years, NATO air-lifting Burundian and Rwandan troops into Somalia for the ongoing fighting there, the US assisting that, including with air strikes, drone missile attacks.

So, what you are seeing is kind of a war front extending around the same latitude that Sahel is at, but all the way from West African and Mali to East Africa and Somalia, and in-between increasingly in areas like the western part of Sudan, Darfur, the Central African Republic.

The US and its NATO allies, and its NATO allies are, we have to recall, all the major colonial powers that had formally divided up and ruled the African continent: Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, later on Germany and Italy, also Turkey during the Ottoman period, and this is a force that is not going back to supposedly restore order or pacify Africa again. I am sure the Africans on the ground, if not their governments, are nervous, they recollect what happened the last time these guys were there.

Robles: Now, Rick, back to Mali there for a minute: a few minutes ago you mentioned something about NATO being a guarantor of energy supplies. Right?

Rozoff: Uh huh.

Robles: I read an article by somebody, I can’t exactly remember where it was, they said the whole purpose for the French assistance of the Malian Government was to ensure the delivery of Uranium to France from Niger. Do you know anything about that?

Rozoff: It is extremely good point, the estimates I’ve read is that 80% of energy produced in France is from nuclear power plants. They are dependent of course on Uranium to run those plants, and Mali and neighboring Niger, area sources for a good deal of that Uranium, and the fighting that’s been going on for a number of years in the north of Mali with the Tuareg Rebels: in large part the Tuaregs wanted not only autonomy and a certain degree of participation in the central government in Bamako, but also wanted some say into what happened with the proceeds of the Uranium mines in the north of the country where they reside. So, in large part I think we can see this, as being another energy resource grab!

You were listening to the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the Owner, Manager and Editor of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.

End of Part 2. Please visit our site in the near future for the third and final part of this interview. 

The US Was Killing Russians Defending their Homeland Rick Rozoff

1 February, 17:00  Download audio file

The story of the Polar Bear Expedition or what was also called the American North-Russia Expeditionary Force is told by the Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff. The operation took place between 1918 and 1919 and saw at least 5,000 US troops sent into Russian territory to kill Bolsheviks in the North of Russia. The goals were to secure weapons cached in the North, assist Czechoslovakian forces who were fighting the Bolsheviks and overthrow the Communist Government.

Robles: Soon we are coming upon the 95th anniversary of an event that very few people know about. Would you like to tell our listeners a little bit about what that event is?

Rozoff: Sure, I would. And that’s something that first came to my attention through a… in a very personal way which I’ll describe in a moment. But the event, or the operation we are talking about, is something that is proverbially known as the Polar Bear Expedition. The formal designation for it was the Northern Russia Expedition or the American North-Russia Expeditionary Force. And what that was, was the deployment somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 US, troops starting in September of 1918 and continuing into at least July of 1919, in northern Russia, fighting armed forces of the Russian Government of that time, which was after the October Revolution in Russia… So it was the Government of Lenin.

But that American troops were sent, in some instances, after the armistice was signed, from the trenches in France, and in some cases directly from the state of Michigan to fight near the Arctic Circle in Russia.

In 1972 the last time I saw my maternal grandfather, my mother’s farther, shortly before he died. I knew that he had been in Pershing’s Allied Expeditionary Force, they’ve been with the US forces in France in World War I. And I happened to ask him, I was a very young man at the time, and I happened to ask him: what happened after the armistice was signed and the troops were demobilized in France. And his colorful characterization of it was, and I quote him, he said: “They sent us to fight the Bolsheviks”. That’s a quote I can recall, you know, 41 years ago almost.

And in fact I knew that his unit had received basic training at what was called at that time Camp Custer, after George Custer, “General Custer”, later became Fort Custer and it is outside the Battle Creek, Michigan.

My grandfather was born in Michigan, though spent most of his life in the Canadian province of Ontario. But when the US entered World War I in 1917, he enlisted in the US Army and was trained in Camp Custer. And it is from there, from the 85th division trained at Camp Custer, that regiments were selected to fight in Russia in 1918-1919: that’s the Polar Bear Expedition or operation.

Over a hundred US troops were killed in fighting, scores of others died because of disease and other ailments, probably hundreds wounded. There is no telling how many Russian citizens were killed by the American troops during that period.

And what happened, almost four years ago now, a documentary film was made and shown in the state of Michigan where Camp Custer is. And amongst other people attending the show and praising the so-called Polar Bear Expedition was the senior senator from the state of Michigan Carl Levin who at the occasion of the unveiling of the film, stated, and I’m quoting from a Michigan newspaper at the time, in 2009: “It is a perfect time for us to meet, a perfect place. There are lessons to be learned in history, there are lessons here.”

I’m not sure which lessons senator Levin was referring to but the fact that for the last four years the United States has renewed its claim to the Arctic Ocean, at the expense of other nations, Canada in the first instance, but Russia most directly, one would guess. You know, the fact that the US is celebrating its first effort in the Arctic region, the first combat operation against Russia in 1918 and 1919, I think is something worth noting.

Robles: So, this was on Russian territory, it was on Russian soil and this involved…

Rozoff: Yes, I remember my grandfather telling me, again I have to go back a number of years, I tend to recall him saying he was deployed in Murmansk. But what I’ve read on the subject subsequently suggests that it’s not terribly far from there Archangel (Arkhangelsk) and that the US troops were sent there, the traditional understanding of it evidently is that the British War Minister at the time, who was Winston Churchill, prevailed upon the American President Woodrow Wilson to deploy the troops, supposedly for a number of objectives, one of which was to secure armaments that have been stored there during the war before the Russian Revolution and the withdrawal of Russia from the war.

The second of all,was, really to fight the newly founded Government in Russia, the Bolshevik Government. And thirdly to support Czech Legion, which were Czechoslovak, for the most part Czech soldiers, who had served in the Russian Army during World War I and then became anti government, you know, fighters against the Government after the Revolution of November 1917.

So, I think the third factor, that is supporting the Czech Legion, is a more plausible explanation for the involvement of the US troops and suggests that nothing less than countering the Russian Government at that time and ultimately overthrowing, it was the intent of the deployment of the American soldiers.

Robles: I see. Can you tell us any details about the operation that people might not have ever heard about?

Rozoff: With what reading I’ve done on the subject, it wasn’t of course the entire division that was sent. It was, I believe, two or perhaps three, regiments from the 85th division that were deployed.

They arrived in Archangel at the very beginning of September of 1918, and at least, according to one account I’ve read, they were placed under British Command with other, evidently British armed forces, in the area as well.

The British supposedly had arrived in Archangel a month earlier, early August of 1918, and apparently the Russian forces had already moved the armaments or the material that the British intended to seize or secure, and that led to an expedition up river evidently, the Dvina River, with acts of fighting between indigenous Russian forces and American troops.

And by most accounts, early on, this was winter time of course, it was maybe in October or so, the American campaign clearly had come to a dead end, it wasn’t successful. Their attempts to link up with the Czech troops fighting the Government of Moscow were unsuccessful. And it was prolonged into the summer of 1919 but ultimately abandoned.

The casualties again that I… actually I’ve seen by one account, an estimated 110 American soldiers were killed in fighting with Russian forces.

Robles: And this was actually US troops on Russian territory killing Russians.

Rozoff: People defending their soil, you know, their territory.

Robles: Why were they placed under UK Command?

Rozoff: I suspect because the fact that British soldiers have been sent to the same area, the Archangel-Murmansk region, a month earlier to prepare, it was easier for them to get there I guess. But we know that Britain had played a role in the interim period between the February Revolution in 1917 in Russia and the October one, that is during the provisional Government of the Kerensky period, in trying to secure the continued involvement of the Russian Government, whatever it was, whatever it turned out to be, in the war.

And the Kerensky Government indeed, I’m sure under the pressure and perhaps no little bribery from Britain, France and the United States did continue Russian involvement in the war, one which cost several million Russian lives.

Mr. Rick Rozoff is the manager and the owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list, and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.

 The US did not set up US/AFRICA Command as a social service agency - Rozoff

28 January, 12:29   Download audio file  

The US did not set up US/AFRICA Command as a social service agency - Rozoff

Regular Voice of Russia Contributor Rick Rozoff discusses Syrian defenses and how they are preventing a Western invasion, Russian-Syrian cooperation, the pretext of the war on terror to invade countries which he says was part of phase 2 of the US/NATO global expansion, other pretexts used to justify military expansion, the ties between al-Qaeda and the US and the massive expansion by US/NATO into the African continent which will, in effect, bring all of Africa under US/NATO control.

Robles: There’ve been reports that Russian anti-aircraft and defensive systems are the only thing stopping a US invasion of Syria. How much credence would you give to those reports?

Rozoff: I think that’s a very plausible contention. And that in fact over the decades, during the Soviet period and in the post-Soviet period, that Russia has maintained military-to-military ties with the Government in Syria and has, as is the Russian policy, provided strictly defensive weapons to an ally, to a client state, to Syria.

And that I’m sure anyone in the know about this thing wouldn’t be talking about it. But I think it is a safe assumption that Syria has an integrated air defense system that is substantially more advanced and effective than anything that the countries that have been in recent years the victims of US-NATO military onslaughts have had. For example Libya and certainly Afghanistan, Iraq after over a decade of sanctions, and perhaps even Yugoslavia. So, one of the factors, as you mention, that may have already prevented more reckless provocative military action by Western powers against Syria is the fact that Syria has the ability to protect itself.

As you are aware of and this has been mentioned by the Russian officials is the deployment of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Interceptors in Southeastern Turkey may in fact, in part, be to effectively enforce a no-fly zone over the border land, you know, the area on the other side of the Syrian border, to prevent aircraft, as well as cruise missiles or other theatre missiles, from being used in that area, and as such, may be preparatory to plans to cripple or neutralize the Syrian air defense system on a more ambitious scale. That’s certainly a possibility.

While reflecting on developments in Syria, and even more so, developments by outside players meddling in internal affairs in Syria, and I’m talking of course about the United States and its NATO allies and their allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council; the monarchies and sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, we have to recall that Russia does have its only military facility in the entire Mediterranean in Tartus, in Syria, and that, affecting, as the West and its Persian Gulf allies intend to, regime change in Damascus would inevitably lead to the eviction of the Russian Naval Forces, or their ability to use the facility in Tartus.

We also have to recall that Syria is the only Arab country currently that has particularly close state-to-state relations with Russia, as it does with Iran, same category, and that with the displacement or the replacement of the Government in Damascus we will see the entire Mediterranean Sea basin turned into a Pentagon-NATO stronghold. With no… Libya being knocked out last year and Lebanon presumably going the way of Syria, so that Russian strategic interests in the Mediterranean would be seriously hurt with the overthrow of the Government in Syria and its replacement by a US puppet regime.

Robles: Can you give a prediction, more or less, or see where things are going into Africa?

Rozoff: Yes, along with the so called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, which is meant to create an alliance based on a model of NATO by the US and the several of its NATO allies, like Britain and France who are past colonial powers in the East Asia and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole, to encircle and contain China much as NATO expansion in Europe is aimed to do it vis-à-vis Russia, but we are also seeing the increased military focus on Africa by the United States, by the entire continent, following in the wake of the creation of the US-Africa Command. The latest, and in terms of the number of countries included, the largest, overseas US regional military command in history.

And because nations like China, Russia, India and others are reaching out to Africa for trade, economic and natural resource purposes, we are seeing the US increasingly intensifying its military presence and activity on the continent. A recent article many of your listeners may be aware of, documents the United States is to deploy, initially at least, limited contingents of military forces to 35 nations in Africa. Depending on how one counts them there are 54 members of the African Union, so that’s a pretty sizeable percentage of the total number of countries in Africa. And that’s in addition of course to the US-NATO war against Libya in North Africa last year.

Robles: So, what exactly are they going to be doing in these 35 countries?

Rozoff: Most of what we’re talking about will be covert activities. The official explanation is “fighting al-Qaeda forces in Africa”. I cannot believe there are 35 nations in Africa that are threatened by al-Qaeda in Africa or anything like it.

Robles: That’s been the whole pretext of this global expansion and this global war on terror. When is this going to stop? How is this going to stop? I mean: how can they just keep doing this over and over? Invade country after country after country on the same fantasy pretext? I mean: no one is ever going to be able to stop this until we all become slaves or what?

Rozoff: You are raising a very interesting question, particularly as it seems to be a real drum beat for military intervention in Mali, in Northwest Africa, and again, ostensibly to combat al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Robles: I mean they created al-Qaeda, for Christ’s sake!

Rozoff: Yes, that’s the irony that I think needs to be emphasized, is the fact that while the US and its NATO allies are actively supporting al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda -linked foreign fighters and terrorists against governments in Libya and Syria, and who knows where else tomorrow, they are using the pretext of fighting al-Qaeda to introduce military forces into Africa, throughout the continent of Africa indeed. So, I think we can take that at face value, that this is a charade, this is a pretence.

We should also of course, since we talked about earlier, the fact that the US has pivoted to the Asia-Pacific region after having subjugated the greater Middle East, that somebody is playing off an old script, if you will, when they come up with these sorts of bogus excuses, because that really belongs to phase 2, if you will, of post-Cold War global US military expansion. So, they need a new script writer in the State Department and the Pentagon.

Robles: Regarding?

Rozoff: The reason why they are increasing military forces in Africa. We know for example that last year the Obama Administration announced a deployment of (special operations) special forces troops to four countries in Central Africa to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army. And they were going to Uganda, the Central African Republic, Congo, South Sudan. So, in that case it is clearly not al-Qaeda. The US military forces have been involved in counter-insurgency operations in Mali for several years and not against al-Qaeda but against ethnic Tuaregs.

So, they’ll use whatever excuse, I guess is at hand, you know, fighting pirates in the Horn of Africa, or pirates in the Gulf of Guinea, or the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa, but at the end of the day, the US did not setup the US-Africa Command as a social service agency. They set it up as the scaffolding for increased US military activities in Africa. And what we’ve seen, with the confirmation of the fact that the Pentagon is going to deploy new military forces to 35 nations, is that the US is intent on establishing a permanent military presence throughout the length and breadth of Africa.

PART1 Clinton's language has no place in international diplomacy

16 January, 11:32    Download audio file

Clinton's language has no place in international diplomacy - interview

VERY VERY STRANGE Collage FROM "The Voice of Russia"

The owner of Stop NATO, Rick Rozoff, recently spoke to the Voice of Russia about NATO's global plans and Russian-US relations. In part 2 of our interview Mr. Rozoff states that the US has been intentionally baiting and insulting Russia as it enroaches on Russia geopolitical space, he says that it is only the diplomatic maturity and the sense of responsibility of the Russian Government that has prevented the situation from becoming a far worse crisis.

Part 1 of a 2012 NATO review

You took part in a debate. Can you remind our listeners about that?

Yes. NATO planning committee in Chicago, under the pressure from the ad hoc coalition that was protesting the NATO Summit and other forces, agreed to have a televised debate between the two NATO spokespeople and two people taking the opposite position, that is, people in opposition to the world’s first global military bloc. And initially this was to have included two fairly high-ranking NATO officials who were subsequently pulled and that was cancelled. Subsequent to that, the plan was to bring on the NATO side two former US Ambassadors to NATO and that plan was scrapped.

So, eventually two university professors in Chicago with some military background were brought on to defend the NATO position and two of us – a woman who had been a veteran US marine, or a veteran of the Iraq war and myself put forward the anti-NATO position. But because the resources available to the people who sponsored this think tank in Chicago, it was not only televised globally on YouTube but lengthy extracts have appeared on Chicago television. So, for the first time ever I suppose, at least here in the US, the anti-NATO forces were given an opportunity to air their grievances against the bloc.

Has there been any blowback?

Yes, in fact even at the time an ire of intimidation and fear-mongering was intentionally pushed by the city administration, and I’m sure the White House is behind it. The very day of the demonstration, for example, the two daily newspapers had banner headlines announcing a terrorist plot in Chicago. That is, that five people had been arrested ostensibly for planning pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails or something of the sort. But the case has really gone no place. But it was enough to intimidate people.

I personally spoke to people at the demonstration and to people I work with who, in both cases, stated that friends or relatives of theirs had intended to come to the demonstration but were scared off by this fact. There was an effort made to intimidate the people and to keep them away from anti-NATO activities. Nevertheless, there was a respectable showing in the march. It included people like the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was at the front of the march, but it also included several dozen young US former service members who had fought in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

The Russian-US working group, the NATO group recently met. Where did you see Russian-NATO-US relations going? Was it worse than you thought or better?

Let’s say no better, no worse. But it is surely no progress. We know for example, there is now a new Russian representative in the NATO-Russia Council who has replaced his predecessor. That format is still active. It had not been, of course, for a long period of time after Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia in August of 2008 and the fact that the US and NATO both immediately afterwards set up special cooperation formats with Georgia to all but award it for its aggression and to pledge continued support to the Saakashvili regime and Tbilisi, as well to modernize its so called defenses, which is in many cases offensive military capabilities.

What we have seen is that the US and NATO still resolutely refuse Russian offers to provide legal guarantees for the interceptor missile system in Eastern Europe. They have sabotaged and effectively destroyed the Russian offer to setup sectoral defense where Russia would have interceptor missiles covering a certain swath of land and then it would be picked up by NATO and the US. So, at every turn the US and NATO are spurning Russian offers to cooperate on a genuine defense system and forging ahead with the unilateral system that, in its initial deployments, will be on countries either bordering Russia or comparatively close to it. You know, Poland and Romania in the first place.

But we do have to recollect that the very same PAC-3 missiles that are heading to Turkey were deployed to eastern Poland in May of 2010, a battery was stationed there and which remains there, which is only in estimated 40 miles from the Russian territory, from the Kaliningrad District. So, I think it is irreputable, what’s happening is that the US and NATO are encroaching upon Russian geopolitical space and essentially taunting Russia. And every effort made by Russia to extend offers of cooperation and so forth are essentially being refused.

What’s your opinion on where Russia-US relations are going?

In many ways the US attitude towards the Russian Federation is even more abrasive and dismissive than the US attitude and behaviors towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War and I think that’s an incontestable fact. With the recent passage of the so called Magnitsky Bill in the US, what we’re seeing – is almost gratuitous efforts to belittle or demean or insult Russia and whenever Russia attempts to take any countermeasures they are accused of.

This is slightly off the point, but I mean it gives you an indication of where the things are going, when Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus tried to setup a customs union, we had the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warning about the resovietization the former Soviet space. That’s a brash and almost lunatic claim, but this is what passes muster in today’s world. And the US feels that – well, they can make accusations like that, so contemptuous are they, of Russia, and I would add of the rest of the world for that matter, but we are talking about Russia.

And this follows on heels of now I guess the former US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton herself over the past years using words like “despicable” and so forth in relation to Russian actions, particularly in the UN. And I’m old enough to remember the Cold War, and I frankly do not remember leading US diplomats using that kind of language in relation to the Soviet Union, the sort of language we are now hearing.

I don’t remember anything like that myself.

But this is a sort of imperial hubris that accompanies some nation that’s reached the same sort of delusions of grandeur that an individual afflicted with bipolar disorder might. “Being the world’s military superpower”, and that quote is from President Barack Obama, - “they are allowed to engage in any kind of swagger they choose to and that they can insult one of the major nations in the world – Russia, and one more over whose military capacities are the only ones that seriously rival the US”. So, to insult and provoke, and Russia the way it is doing – it is only the diplomatic maturity and the sense of responsibility of the Russian Government that’s prevented this from flaring up and becoming a far worse crisis.

 But one wonders when the next provocation is going to occur. The next time Russia is going to be accused of resovietazing the former Soviet space, the next time they are going to be called “despicable” or “shameful”? Such language has no role whatsoever in international diplomacy and really casts a very dark mark on the ruling elite in the US.

PART2 NATO is in phase 3 of its global expansion

9 January, 12:50   Download audio file

‘NATO is in phase 3 of its global expansion’ – Rozoff

NATO is engaged in completing phase 3 of its post-Cold War global expansion, and the global nature of what once was the "North Atlantic" alliance is now official, says the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website Rick Rozoff in part one of a 2012 year-end summary interview on the activities of NATO. He also talks about NATO’s military activity in regards to “partners across the globe”, a bilateral organization of cooperation which initially consisted of 8 countries, all in the Asia-Pacific region: Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan.

Part 2 of a 2012 NATO review

Hello, this is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, he’s the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Robles: Could we do a quick review of the events that have been taking place with NATO and where do you think they’re going?

Rozoff: It’s been another year of the expansion of the U.S. dominated military block. That was highlighted, I suppose, by the summit that was held here, in Chicago, in May of this year, where amongst other things, NATO announced the fact that it retains its status as a nuclear alliance, meaning it maintains offensive nuclear weapons in Europe, for use in the European theater and perhaps in the Middle East.

NATO had also announced in May at the summit that it had achieved initial operational capability of the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach Interceptor Missile System, with the now permanent deployment of interceptor missile warships in the Mediterranean and a command-and-control center in Germany. And that’s preparatory, of course, to placing 48 or more land-based interceptor missiles in Poland and Romania in the upcoming years.

What we see most alarmingly this year, and it’s a theme that needs to be dwelled on somewhat, is the active expansion of NATO military hardware into, what, the Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen repeatedly refers to as “the alliance’s southeastern border”, meaning Turkey, and southeastern Turkey at that: where Turkey meets with not only Syria, but with Iran and Iraq.

At the beginning of this year the U.S. under NATO auspices moved in an X-Band transportable interceptor missile radar facility to Turkey, and after the placement of the interceptor missile radar, the U.S. and NATO consolidated two; what are called Allied Land Command Centers, in Europe, and had moved them into Turkey into one command.

And, as we know, that within the next week or so, we’re to see the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Interceptor Missile Batteries in southeastern Turkey along with several hundred U.S., Dutch and German troops to accompany those.

So what we’re seeing is that NATO is shifting its emphasis towards the southern-most and eastern-most member of the alliance: Turkey, and is making a bid to expand its influence and perhaps to engage in active military operations in the Middle East. So that I think is the most significant aspect of NATO’s expansion so far this year.

That, in addition to, another development that occurred immediately prior to and then was officially enshrined during the summit in May, which was the creation of new non-geographically specific partnership format called “Partners Across the Globe”, this is the official designation that NATO knows it by, and it initially consists of 8 countries, all in the broader Asia-Pacific region, the Middle-East – East Asia: they are Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan, so we’re seeing the open manifestation of NATO now as an international military force.


Robles: What about the expansion into Central and Eastern Asia?

Rozoff: That, of course, as you know has been under way since 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan and currently the United States and NATO still maintain military facilities, not only in Afghanistan, but in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The talk is for the U.S. and its NATO allies to eventually withdraw, of course, from those nations, but I wouldn’t expect to see that happen in the imminent future and I think their long-term plans are to maintain Pentagon and NATO military capacities in Central and South Asia, with Afghanistan being the hub of those operations but, as mentioned with NATO Partnership for Peace Allies, like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, maintaining some sort of U.S. and NATO presence in the countries. However there was an intriguing article in China’s People’s Daily that suggested that what we’re seeing right now with the U.S. pivot or shift to the Asia-Pacific region is basically Phase 3 of the U.S. global military expansion in the post-Cold War Era.

The first phase was, of course, the expansion of NATO into Central and Eastern Europe, where it has now absorbed as “full members”, every single former Warsaw Pact country outside of the Soviet Union, in addition to, of course, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and two former Yugoslav Republics and Albania. That was the first phase.

The second phase, what was referred to from 2001 onwards as being the “greater” or the “broader” Middle East Project: that is where the U.S. in conjunction with its NATO Allies expanded influence from Northern Africa all the way to the Chinese border, in nations like Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

And the third phase then being the only part of the world that hasn’t come under the boot of the Pentagon: the Asia-Pacific Region, and I think that’s a pretty astute analysis and I think that three-phase model is a very accurate one.

Robles: So, Rick in “your” opinion, what were the main events of NATO during the past year?

Rozoff: As mentioned: the fact that they announced that they have initial capability for their European and Mediterranean based interceptor missile systems, which is really the opening salvo in creating a global missile shield. Initially, it will be in Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean, but it’s expanding already throughout most of the world. That’s probably the most single significant fact with NATO expansion; is they’re on a new ‘plane of battle’ if you will.

It’s no longer simply positioning themselves: ground forces or even air forces. Now they’ve quite openly proclaimed that they’re setting up what is potentially a first strike: son of ‘Star Wars’ as it is colloquially known, an interceptor missile system that could potentially impede the ability of a nation, that has been either targeted or attacked, to launch effective retaliation because of a series of sea-based and land-based interceptor missiles. That would have to be the most significant and most dangerous initiative by NATO this past year.

Robles: What about the summit in Chicago and all the events related to that?

Rozoff: By holding a NATO Summit for only the second time in the United States, the only preceding one was in 1999 in Washington D.C., which marked the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO, but to have held that only for the second time in the United States and then in the very heartland of the country, in Chicago, rather than in the administrative capital of the country, Washington: drew a lot of attention to an alliance that many Americans had either neglected to inform themselves about or had downplayed the significance of, but when it came to Chicago it forced a lot of people to take notice of it, and as a result there was a coalescence of peace forces and other anti-war and anti-intervention forces that gathered in a series of actions in Chicago, but culminating in, by some accounts 15-20 thousand people, the large anti-NATO protest on the second day of the summit in Chicago, so it has brought to people’s attention both within the United States and I think globally, the scope and the potential danger of the world’s only military alliance.


Georgian Elections Beginning of End for Saakashvili and Turkish-Syria Border Clash

4 October 2012, 15:14  Download audio file

Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list comments on latest developments in Georgia and NATO’s emergency meeting surrounding the situation on the Turkish/Syrian border and its role in the region. He claims that: “NATO countries and their Allies in the Persian Gulf aren’t going to back down no matter what Syria does.”

Hello Rick. How are you?

Very good John.

I’d like to speak with you a little bit about the latest developments in Georgia... and with NATO... and with Turkey and Syria of course. IF could start out with the parliamentary elections in Georgia. They look like maybe the beginning of the end for Saakashvili. In your opinion if he goes and relations are normalized with Russia, how will this affect NATO’s long-term geopolitical plans in the region?

That’s an interesting proposition, I certainly hope that better relations with Russia will ensue with the departure of Mr. Saakashvili who has been a disaster both for his own country and the region. However, I would temper our enthusiasm right now and of course you are referring to the fact that the opposition Georgian Dream party garnered 55% in the parliamentary election which is a handsome victory, they really trounced Saakashvili’s party. And the individual Saakashvili will eventually depart as president not immediately evidently as he is refusing to step down until the presidential election but his likely successor, the head of Georgian Dream political party, or coalition I guess it is, Bidzina Ivanishvili has announced today that his first stop, when he does become president, his first visit will be the United States. So, I don’t think we are going to see a qualitative difference in foreign policy orientation even with the change of political parties at the top in Georgia right now and of course the head of Georgian Dream has also announced that he is sustaining or maintaining his country’s commitment to joining both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. So, time will tell but I wouldn’t be overly optimistic about a dramatic transformation.

So, you think NATO’s plans, and their integration or drawing in of Georgia, into the NATO fold... That will remain unchanged?

It will remain unchanged from the point of view of Brussels and certainly of Washington, which has invested, as you indicated in an article 2 days ago, has invested so much in Georgia, that it is not going to allow the change of a president, or the replacement of the current president to affect their geopolitical designs in the South Caucasus as a whole, but certainly in Georgia in particular.

What do you think about the opinion of the Georgian people, I mean, if they decide that they don’t want this?

This is an encouraging aspect, I mean, it is clearly a referendum on Saakashvili and he clearly was rejected by a handsome majority of the Georgian electorate which is an indication of what many people inside and certainly outside of the country suspect which is that Saakashvili has ruled through fair means or foul, usually foul, and that he did not have the mass support, as was evidenced by the parliamentary vote, you know, that he always claimed to have, and that his contentions or his boast in that respect of course being echoe dutifully by western leaders, US, in the first place. And I am not quite certain if the west puts all of their eggs in his basket and has now had them broken or if the West was not instrumental in supplanting him with his successor. It is a matter of speculation to this point. But the question you raised about better relations with Russia is something that has been pledged by the presumed next president of the country and that will probably be more on the economic front, John, than it would in terms of Georgia’s relationship with the Pentagon and with NATO.

I see...


Now... Speaking of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen just had his term extended and he said his main goal is ending the so-called "mission" in Afghanistan. How does this coincide with plans by NATO to keep bases in Afghanistan for the "very" long term?

I think, as you're intimating, part of the logic perhaps in extending Rasmussen’s post as Secretary-General of NATO is to not change horses in mid-stream, if you will, to have the same person in place, the head of the military alliance which runs the International Security Assistance Force, through the so-called draw-down or transistion period scheduled for 2014. Not that he's going to be there in 2 years. But that, ahem, to make a change at this point would be disadvantageous to the west in terms of US plans to maintain major air bases and other military facilities in the country, and we are talking about the Bagram Air Base of course outside of Kabul, the Shindand Air Base not terribly far from the Iranian border and other major potentially strategic military facilities in Afghanistan. The US has already announced, you know, both military and political elected officials, have announced that the US is not leaving and Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said repeatedly, recently as a matter of fact, that just because the troops will be drawn down in 2 years, doesn't mean NATO is leaving Afghanistan, NATO intends to stay there as it has stayed in Kosovo for 13 years and still maintains a presence in Iraq as a matter of fact.

Last time we talked about NATO’s silence and the fact that they were probably planning something, most obviously an invasion of Syria comes to my mind. Last night Turkey attacked Syria in retaliation for supposed attack, which killed several citizens of Turkey. With all of the mercenaries and terrorist ammassed on the Turkish and Syrian border can we be sure that this was the Syrians that did this? And... anyway... what's your view? Do you think this will be the catalyst, that NATO apparently wants, to invade Syria?

It could well be, but it's certainly a marked escalation of provocations that have been occurring since last summer. We recall of course the Turkish warplane that violated the air space of Syria in June and was shot down by Syrian air defenses, and then towards the very end of July-beginning of August, Turkey deployed troops, tanks, armored personnel carriers and missile batteries to within 2 kilometers of the Syrian border ostensibly in pursuit of fighters in the Kurdistan Worker's Party. So, there has been a steady escalation of provocations and what appear to be, you know, attempts to bait or to provoke Syria into some sort of military response, which would then be portrayed as an active aggression, permitting Turkey once again, as it did last night (Brussels time), and as it did in June which is going to NATO headquarters in Brussels convening a meeting of what's called the North Atlantic Council, that is the Ambassadors of the 28 NATO member states, and pledging their collective support to Turkey in any mlitary confrontation with Syria. So in the very least what has occurred...

Incidently, so I don't forget the point:There’s no definitive proof right now that the mortar shell that landed in the Turkish village, resulting in the tragic deaths of 5 civilians and the wounding, I believe of 8 others, it has not been established that this was fired by Syrian government forces, and as you indicate the fact that there are ragtag groups of insurgents fighting for, ahem, and we don’t even know the nationality in many instances, but, with different political orientations and different agendas, gives us reason to believe that the mortar shell or the explosion could have been caused by them, by the rebels as well as by the Syrian government. However, I think it’s imperative that we recall that just the preceding day there were 2 terrorists bombings in the Syrian city of Aleppo that killed as many as 50 people, killed as many as 50 people, wounded as many as 122, by recent accounts I have seen. This is a city very close to the Turkish border. And, ah, you know, it defies logic to, ah, to not take into account the fact that these terrorist atrocities could well have been committed by individuals who have been allowed free passage across the Turkish border.

We have to recall that no other country would tolerate this sort of armed attack from a neighboring state without some kind of action.…


Rick gives example of US War of 1812...

…but this is something countries do: they defend their borders! And to suggest that Syria has no right to do that is evidently, as the West maintains, is first of all foolhardy and is another example of double standards.”

I don’t think the issue was that they were defending. They’re saying that Syria bombed first apparently.

Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that the Syrian government intentionally launched mortar attacks inside Turkey.

Sure, sure..

The very worst thing the Syrian government can be accused of doing is miscalculating and accidentally firing a mortal shell across the border. This is something entirely different than a planned act against the neighboring nation.

The NATO Council met last night and they have come out warning Syria to stop its “aggression against Turkey”. What do you make of this statement?

“This was an emergency meeting of North Atlantic Council, it is one of the few occasion where it has met at night, to underline the urgency of this. And the actual NATO statement includes the following passage, and this verbatim:“In the spirit of indivisibility of security and solidarity deriving from the Washington Treaty, that is the founding treaty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Alliance continues to stand by Turkey and demands the immediate cessation of such aggressive acts against an Ally.” That’s part of the statement. And Anders Fogh Rasmussen was also quoted, stating, his concerns about events, and I am quoting him here: “On our South-Eastern border.” That is the Turkish-Syrian border is now officially proclaimed as NATO’s South-Eastern border. Suggesting strongly, that NATO sees this as an attack against the entire military alliance as well as against Turkey….

….What was discussed at the meeting was the so-called Article 4 provision in the Washington Treaty, or what’s actually called the North Atlantic Treaty, the founding document of NATO: which states, “The parties that are NATO member states will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.” That certainly suggests that NATO once again reserves the right to respond collectively in alleged defense of Turkey.”

Would you agree that they’re just waiting for the right chance to invade Syria?

“That’s exactly it. What’s remarkable is the very day before, whatever the nature of the incident is that resulted in the deaths of the Turkish civilians near the border, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Genady Gatilov warned reporters of potential NATO intervention against Syria! The quote from him says, “In our contacts with our partners both in NATO and in the region we’ve called upon them not to look for pretext in order to carry out a military operation.” That’s a quote from the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. And, ah, a paraphrase of his comment stated explicitly that some provocation could occur at the Turkish-Syrian border that may give NATO the green light to intervene in Syria, so, within 24 hours or perhaps less precisely such an event occurrs.

Hypothetical, if you will: What if Bashar al-Assad comes out, he condemns the deaths of the five Turkish citizens and initiates an investigation? Would that stop NATO, do you think?

The Syrian government has already expressed regret over the deaths of the Turkish civilians without being able to establish the cause of those deaths. And, ahem, my assumption will have to be at this point, that the “fix-is-in” and that no matter what the Syrian government says or does, Western plans – that is plans of NATO nations and their Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Persian Gulf, they’re not going to back down. They are nothing if not relentless, we have seen that demonstrated repeatedly in the recent years in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya, and now Syria. And whatever the Syrian government can issue, and probably already has issued statements that should defuse the crisis but everything rides on how Turkey chooses to respond. We know that they’ve already launched artillery attacks inside Syria and according to Today’s Zaman, one of the leading newspapers in the country in Turkey, tanks, missile batteries and other military hardware have been moved up to the Syrian border again as it was at the end of last July.

RecepTayyip Erdogan said that any military equipment belonging to the Syrian armed forces which were to approach the border would be seen as a threat. Does that mean that Syria does not have the right to protect their borders?

Evidently that is what Erdogan means and what his western backers, his NATO allies intend which is to say that Syria has no right to protect its own borders from cross-border insurgent and terrorist attack, but that Turkey reserves the right to strike inside Iraq at will, to move, as we talked about a couple of times, fairly massive military formations up to the Syrian border, but that Syria doesn’t have a reciprocal right to protect its own border. Keep in mind Syria is a country under siege, not Turkey.

Right, right.

Yesterday the Iraqi government mentioned for example that they are going to hold a vote in the parliament about rescinding the right of foreign troops to be stationed in Iraqi territory and that’s direct allusion to Turkish troops that are in the northern part of the country in the majority Kurdish area of northern Iraq, and have been there since 1995. So, Turkey reserves the right to station troops inside bordering countries even with the opposition of the central government, reserves the right to launch airstrikes and infantry attacks and so forth inside neighboring countries but disallows Syria the right to protect its own territory.

Very good point.


What is your prediction, I am very interested to know, where do you think this is going to go? What do you see happening in a week or two?

You know, there is an optimistic perspective and there is one that’s been kind of tempered by experience. And the second suggests that the fact that Turkey has directly struck inside Syrian territory intentionally and as we’ve discussed a moment ago, it is uncertain who fired the mortar round that caused recent deaths in Turkey but even for the sake of argument, if it was Syrian military, it was certainly, almost definitely, not a conscious and deliberate attempt to fire inside Turkish territory. So, the fact that Turkey has launched a deliberate military strike inside Syria given the situation in that country over the past 18 months, is again an escalation of this conflict to a hitherto unprecedented dangerous level, and that’s what is important to note. What NATO, the United States and Turkey plan, we could speculate but I would say, you know, the comments you eluded to by Erdogan and by other Turkish officials are extremely bellicose at this moment and certainly suggest that they are willing to threaten Syria if not act further against it.

Thank you very much Rick, anything else you'd like to finish up with? We're almost out of time.

Yes. This isn’t immediately related to Syria though on one instance it actually is. I am going to cite 2 examples. There were reports in the last few hours of demonstrations in the Iranian capital of Teheran that are allegedly motivated by economic factors including the fact that, if the story is true, that their currency, the real. has been devalued by 1/3 because of the crippling sanctions instituted, enforced by the United States and its NATO allies in the first place. There may be efforts to destabilize the situation, or at least distract the attention of Iranian government preparatory to a Turkish-NATO attack on Syria. There is also, and this is not so far-fetched as it may sound on the surface, there is also an upcoming presidential election in Venezuela. And the preferred method of the United States to undermine and ultimately overthrow the handful of governments in the world that still have an independent foreign policy orientation have to be seen not strictly in relation to Syria, but the fact that: if successful in Syria, the US would be further emboldened to step up with regime change and possibly even military intervention plans for nations like Iran and Venezuela and others after them.

Thank you very much, Rick, I really appreciate it.

Yeah, and I hope you get some sleep, John.


PART1 NATO Holds Secret Meeting Approving Syrian Operation

5 September 2012, 12:02  Download audio file 

Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO and among the topics he touched upon were a secret meeting by NATO which apparently approved military operations against Syria. Mr, Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically and using Syria as a pretext. 

NATO has decided to stop training Afghan soldiers. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what you know about that? That seems to be the latest development. They’ve been very quiet lately, which worries me.

It worries us both, John. Yes, in fact NATO suspended, I suppose, what’s called the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan to develop, I guess, a more comprehensive and reliable system of, to use their own word, "vetting" potential recruits of the Afghan national army and this is after, as your listeners know, an unprecedented series of so-called “Green on Blue” attacks by Afghan military personnel against US and other NATO forces in the country. Simultaneously of course the United States’ armed forces in Afghanistan have announced that they are going to suspend if not terminate the training of Afghan police personnel, so it signals the west falling deeper and deeper into an intractable quagmire in South Asia.

Would you characterize this as part of an overall failure of US policy and NATO policy in Afghanistan?

Yes, it’s demonstrable, it's a signal, an indication of catastrophic failure in Afghanistan of course. On October 7th, which, say, next month, the US and NATO will be in Afghanistan for their 11th year and it’s certainly not produced any successful results, it’s led to the dislocation, impoverishment and in many instances, killing, of Afghan civilians without any measureable achievements even according to what the West itself claimed it had intended to do in Afghanistan when the first troops were sent there on October 7th 2001. However, I should mention, we are talking about a quiet NATO and for the most part they have been, arguably since the summit here in Chicago in May, but certainly over the last month or so, nevertheless, NATO is about to launch a fairly large scale air exercises, a series of air exercises in Czech Republic, something called Ramstein Rover 2012, which will include the participation of 12 nations, presumably, both NATO full member states and partners, and this is a test of what are called Forward Air Controllers by NATO, by the United States Joint Terminal Air Controllers. These are the people who call in support including attacks in Afghanistan. So, the fact that such a large scale air exercise clearly targeted either towards Afghanistan specifically, John, or with applicabilities for an Afghan-style operation elsewhere in the world afterwards, suggest that the US and NATO plans for Afghanistan have certainly not ceased and contrary to pledges that both US and NATO will draw down or withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2 years it certainly suggests that they are planning an ongoing military operation.

On Saturday September 1st an article was published on the Internet. They say that NATO has secretly authorized an attack on Syria. Do you know anything about that?

Yes, I do. It’s by Gordon Duff who was a former US intelligence official. It’s actually quite a valuable work. In the article he talks about a meeting of NATO’s military committee in recent days where there were 2 topics on their agenda, one was Greenland, which he passes very quickly as it’s not of primary importance, but the second was on Syria. And what Duff indicates in his article rather convincingly, I am persuaded, is that NATO is elaborating plans for military action in, and against, Syria. I think it’s noteworthy that the meeting of the military committee that the author refers to is nowhere addressed on the NATO websites including on the main NATO homepage. I don’t know how Duff gained access to that information, but certainly it suggests that NATO is keeping a low profile so as not to divulge what its plans may be.

I’ve seen some reports say that NATO is actually targeting Bashar Assad and the Ayatollah of Iran for regime change. Do you know anything about that?

You know, it’s nothing that we are going to see NATO openly acknowledge but it’s common wisdom at this point, or conventional wisdom. To use the expression that's current, "the road to Teheran runs through Damascus” which is to say that the proxy war by NATO forces and their allies amongst the Arab Gulf sheikdoms and the Persian Gulf is, say, a warm-up exercise, if you will, for a comparable campaign against Iran. In that sense, if you want to draw a historical parallel, it’s much like the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s where forces on both sides of the political divide in Europe and in the world gave support either to the Spanish Republic that is to the elected government or to the military insurgents of Generalismo Franco. To update that parallel, just as Mexico and the Soviet Union had sent military and other aid to the Spanish Republic, so Hitler and Mussolini supplied troops and war planes against the government. And something comparable is accruing in Syria now where the United States and NATO allies. There was recent story in the British press, that at least 200 special forces troops from Britain and France, leading NATO members of course, are active on the ground, and your listeners I am sure have heard or read comparable reports. So that what you have is a proxy war by the NATO forces and their sheikdom allies in Persian Gulf not only directly against Syria but by proxy against Iran which, as you indicated in your comments, is the ultimate target. Though as we've had occassion to discuss before on your show, John, the other two targets of the campaign against Syria are of course Russia and China, you know, diplomatically at this point. But one wonders if the Russian North Caucasus, China’s Xinjiang province could not be made into the next Syria at some point in the future.

What is NATO’s position on intervention by Russia and China in Syria and Iran?

Of course there is no question about military intervention by Russia and China at this point but if you are talking about Russia and China’s defense of international law in the cases of both Syria and Iran, the position of NATO which has not been formulated as a collective position by the alliance, but certainly listening to the statements by the foreign ministers and the heads of states of the major NATO powers, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and others, it’s patently obvious that Russia and China are being criticized and in fact are being excoriated for having the alleged temerity to defend the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of other members of the United Nations such as Syria and Iran. So, the NATO members acting in collusion if not completely collectively under the banner of NATO are criticizing and more than criticizing, are attempting to politically, and diplomatically isolate Russia and China using Syria as a pretext.

That was PART I of the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.

PART2 NATO: Secret Mission in Syria

18 September 2012, 11:24  Download audio file

Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO. Mr, Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically and using Syria for that purpose.

On July 4th Rasmussen talked about global NATO. At the same time another NATO official talked about closer cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council. What can you tell us about that?

It is very good of you to make that connection. And certainly the speech you are alluding to by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, I did a work on it, it is a very brief speech, by the way, and I believe I counted 27 times he used the words – global, globally, international and world – in reference to NATO. So, the so called North-Atlantic Treaty Organization has appropriated or arrogated onto itself the right to be a global military intervention force. And the Persian Gulf is one of the key geopolitically strategic areas where they are concentrating.

And this is again, in cahoots with the US talking about perhaps expanding the deployment of the so called X-band – portable missile shield radar sites of the sort that were placed in Turkey this year or in Israel four years ago into the Persian Gulf, into one of the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, as the US is exporting Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Area Defense Interceptors into those countries, so we are talking about a major military buildup - anti-missile, naval – and other forms of military buildup in the Persian Gulf states which are linked to NATO under what is called the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004 which was an overt effort by NATO to replicate other partnership programs around the world focusing on the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

I read somewhere that someone was calling for Israel to join NATO. Is that realistic do you think?

There was an article two days ago, if I’m not incorrect - the time zones are different of course, in Haaretz, the leading Israeli daily newspaper, calling for just that – for the formal inclusion of Israel into the NATO vis-à-vis the confrontation with Iran which would inevitably then pull the entire NATO alliance, including nuclear powers – the US, France and Britain – into any military conflict that could be initiated by Israel against Iran. It is not the first time the statements of this sort are being made. Indeed, Israel as a member of the Mediterranean dialog and military partnership with NATO, it was the first country to be granted an individual partnership initiative under the rubric of the Mediterranean dialog.

It is the only country in the Middle East, I don’t know how many of your listeners know this, that is not subordinate to the Pentagon’s Central Command which takes in all the rest in the Middle East as a matter of fact, from Egypt all the way to, say, Kazakhstan. Israel alone remains under the US-European command area of responsibility and the Chief Military Commander of the European Command is simultaneously the Chief Military Command of NATO in Europe, the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. So, that Israel has a very unique relationship with NATO, to begin with. And because of this geographical situation it may not be possible to be incorporated as a full member state, but politically and ultimately militarily has functioned as such for a long time.

A lot of eyes right now are on the upcoming presidential elections in the US. How would the current plans of NATO change if Republican Mitt Romney is elected president?

What we’ve seen since the creation of NATO in 1949 initially by the Democratic President Harry Truman, but its first military commander – the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe was Dwight Eisenhower who would succeed Truman as the President of the US and he was a Republican. Whatever differences exist domestically between the two major political parties and whatever shades of difference may exist between them on international affairs, one thing that is invariable and uniform is the endorsement of NATO as the US’s military arm in Europe. And as we’ve seen, since the Afghan operation began almost 11 years ago increasingly, and the Middle East Asia and with the war against Libya last year in Africa, I wouldn’t expect to see any substantial difference, not even a shade of difference to be honest between a second Obama or the first Romney Administration, in relation to NATO.

You’ve heard about his comments regarding Russia being geopolitical enemy number 1 etc. What do you make of those? Do you think it is just rhetoric? Or do you think he is really serious and if he becomes President, he is going to take an extremely hard line towards the countries he stated he would?

It is bold, I mean it is rhetorical and it is meant to achieve short term political gains in the presidential election in November. At the same time it is authentic and it is a serious danger, as you’ve pointed out, among the best commentaries I’ve read on the subject are on the Voice of Russia. But sometimes rhetoric gets ahead of itself and then a person’s acts on their own are reckless misperception or a commitment to the rhetoric they’ve been espousing. And I would by no means underestimate the danger of Romney Administration in terms of becoming even more provocative and even more bellicose towards Russia. And that’s a distinct possibility and it is definitely a factor in the presidential election.

How do Americans feel about that?

About the question of bating Russia, bating the Russian bear again as though we are living in the very depths of the Cold War and in many ways even worse. I wish I could tell you my fellow Americans have a decided opinion one way or any other on the matter. But the news media is such in this country, if I may speak poorly of your colleagues across the ocean, that superficial issues are dwelled on. The media event such as the Clint Eastwood speech at the Republican National Convention for example grabbed all the headlines. And substantive issues of the sort you have raised tend to be buried and people either don’t hear about them or hearing about them don’t pay a particular attention them. That’s a tragedy.

The US relations towards Russia and particularly any escalation and provocations against Russia would be plenty bad as they are. As within the world’s two major nuclear powers, I ought to be frank about that, it is the matter of the outmost importance and certainly deserves a lot more attention than it is receiving in the media. And as a result the average American voter, when they walk in the polling booth in November, on their list of priorities Russian-American relations are going to be very low if they exist at all.

Ok, Rick is there anything else that you’d like to finish up with?

No. but again I want to commend the Voice of Russia on it excellent coverage of international affairs. But it is very perceptive reporting on events within my country. Often times we don’t read comparable coverage from local news sources.

So, you are saying to get good news on the US you have to…

Go to the other side of the world.

Iran vs Poland and UNGA’s Plans for Syria

9 August 2012, 19:00  Download audio file

Rick continues listing the reasons why the ABM system in Poland is directed against Russia and discusses the fact that last Friday’s General Assembly’s resolution was drafted by Saudi Arabia and then co-sponsored by Bahrain and Qatar. VoR asked Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list, to comment on matters related to these issues. Part II.

Why did the Polish President refuse to answer who the ABM system in Poland is targetted against and why is it clear they are being installed against Russia?

Try to imagine, first of all, how Iran would have the capability of launching basically intercontinental ballistic missiles over Poland, presumably over the Arctic Circle to hit the United States. I mean that’s the impossibility, fellacious from the very beginning. When the Obama administration scaled that back somehow by suggesting that standard missile 3 interceptors, which have a shorter range, could be used to intercept Iranian missiles, then it begs the question "where?". At what point do you intercept the Iranian missiles?The trajectory and the range of the standard missile-3’s could potentially intercept in some place south of Poland but where – Ukraine, the Caucuses? They don’t carry a charge, they’re kinetic hit-to-kill missiles, as they're called. So, you know, presumably no real damage is done in the fallout over the intended country. I don’t know that Ukraine or Armenia or whoever would be affected by this, would be consulted before this happening. But one thing that gives a “lie” to the entire argument, the deployment of any sort of interceptor missiles in Poland is aimed against Iran, is the fact that in May of 2010 the US moved a Patriot short range interceptor missile battery into the city of Morag in Poland, which is I believe only about 40 miles or 35 miles from the Russian territory of Kaliningrad.

And these are short range missiles?

Right, which can only be placed against presumed Russian missiles coming in. I mean they haven’t arranged to do anything in regard to Iran, so there is talk about how Poland, wanted an insurance from the United States if they put the longer range missiles in they'd have protection, but the protection clearly is not from Iran, or they wouldn’t put short range Patriot interceptors near the Russian border. The inescapable conclusion is that the Patriots are there as at least a symbolic signal to Russia.

What’s your take on the United Nations General Assembly vote from last week’s Friday? You wrote a very interesting article about it for your website.

Yes, it is a second vote of that nature in the General Assembly this year. There was earlier one in February and then it was re-dated last Friday. It is comparable to what the United States did in January of 1980 when the Carter administration went to the General Assembly, and, of course, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, the Security Council would have to authorize anything substantive, like an article 7 on military intervention, for example. But what the Carter administration did in January of 1980 was to go to the General Assembly and get an overwhelming vote condemning the initial Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which had occurred only a couple weeks earlier towards the end of September in 1979. But it wasn’t so important in terms of rallying or marshalling support within the world community fronting action. It was more a propaganda victory for the States, which then could portray the Soviet Union as being an aggressor in Afghanistan and justify its own covert involvement in supporting the Afghan Hafizullah Amin, and everything that is entailed, everything that happened to Afghanistan in the interim. So, what happened in February, what happened last Friday clearly is out of the same playbook, if you will, with what happened in 1980s. What the United States and its NATO allies have done is they introduced a resolution that appears on the surface to be somewhat balanced but is weighted heavily against the government in Damascus and calls for amongst other things the introduction of, a roughly paraphrasing it, a pluralistic multi-party political system within Syria. And Syria though is dominated by the Ba’ath party, actually does have multi-party system in the Parliament. The resolution, and I think your listeners have to know this, was drafted by Saudi Arabia and then co-sponsored by Bahrain and Qatar. So, you have hereditary monarchies, the least democratic nations in the world, drafting a resolution being pushed by the United States and its Western allies, its NATO allies, calling for political transformation in Syria, along the lines what I indicated with the paraphrase, but there is no sense of irony evidently in the world to realize that of all countries in the world that have been chosen to draft that resolution at Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, and Qatar and, I think, Egypt at one point co-sponsored it, these are the worst possible examples, and again reveals the abject hypocrisy of the west to be talking about a democratic transformation and the transition, governmental transition in Syria and at the same time hiding behind the likes of Saudi Arabia to affect that.

Teaming up with the Al-Qaeda, to bring that about?

Nobody is denying the fact that there are Jihadists, Wahhabi, Salafist, Al-Qaeda, elements operating in Syria’s part of the so called Free Syrian Army, and the United States seems to be willing as it did last year in Libya under very similar circumstances to not only tolerate but to assist that process. But going back to the vote, there were 133 countries voting in favor, only 12 voting against, some 31 abstaining. The abstentions are from countries that are hesitant to generally support the United States in its more aggressive moves around the world but, to be more honest, to have taken a principle position 31 countries by right they should have voted against it. It includes nations ranging from Ecuador to Vietnam, to Surinam, and other nations that have more or less independent foreign policy orientations. But what is frightening is that both in the February vote and last Friday there were only 12 nations out of 193 in the General Assembly that voted against the resolution – Russia, China, Syria. But only 9 other nations have stood with them. Those 9 nations as we talked about before in your program, are nations that are already targeted for Syrian or Libyan style regime change program themselves, nations like Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, and others, or simply by standing up to the United States, or, say, allies of Saudi Arabia, have declared themselves targets for Syrian style subversion interaction regime change. It’s a very sad moment in the world where the US and its allies have managed to corral that higher percentage of general assembly members nations in the world in fact to support what was clearly a one-sided resolution aimed against the government of Syria, and in the words of the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin he said something of the affect that the resolution acted as though there were no armed opposition in the country attaching no blame to the opposition for any of the violence.

He came down on government officials, that these are insurgents trying to take over the government and trying to engage in a violent overthrow of the official government of the country and the resolution just placed all the blame on the government.

That’s exactly what it did. And in regard again to the sponsors, these great models of Euro-Atlantic or Transatlantic democracy like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Bahrain, the Syrian Ambassador of the United Nations referred to them quite justly, quite accurately as despotic oligarchies, which is precisely what they are. Nobody in the west appears to be embarrassed to have allowed these three countries to sponsor and Saudi Arabia to draft a resolution calling for what they have the audacity to refer to as democracy.

Ukraine Forced into NATO

19 July 2012, 15:16 Download audio file

In a recent interview, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has urged Ukraine to settle the issue of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and remove obstacles in relations with the alliance, in what can be viewed as yet another NATO attempt to steer Ukraine towards the integration of this former Soviet state in the US-led military bloc. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO, believes NATO is not relented in its ambition to incorporate Ukraine into NATO ultimately as a full member.

Secretary General of NATO Rasmussen is urging Kiev to remove obstacles in relation to NATO. Can you tell us about that?

It’s NATO’s intention to bring Ukraine into NATO’s full membership which is why there’s special NATO-Ukraine commission that was set up roughly 4-3.5 years ago with the expressed purpose of doing that. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, the countries of Ukraine and Georgia both hadn’t received the green light – if you will - to join NATO’s full members, but to be granted with Membership Action Program which is a final stage before full NATO accession. So a compensatory mechanism was set up which is the commission I mentioned both for Ukraine and Georgia. And despite the change in government – Yanukovich replaced Yushenko - NATO is not relented in its ambition to incorporate Ukraine into NATO ultimately as a full member. So Rasmussen’s comments are in line with that policy of NATO. And of course two military exercises in Ukraine have recently been concluded this month including the annual Operation Sea Breeze which is run by the US. It’s supposedly a joint US-Ukrainian military exercise, naval in the Black sea, not too far from the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Given Ukraine’s location, its size, its role and the armaments industry in both Soviet space and so forth - it’s a key acquisition for NATO. It doesn’t surprise me that Rasmussen is laying down these terms to Ukraine.

They talk about human rights, the Timoshenko case, Lutsenko, what do you think about their claims?

They’re going to overrule decisions made by the Parliament in Ukraine, by the President. They’re going to trample in the laws of Ukraine in order to support their clients, Yulia Timoshenko, the gas princess in the first instance. The sort of dictate almost from the West in relations to Timoshenko is all about ordering the Yanukovich government to release her and so forth. It’s a further example of the interference of the US in internal affairs of sovereign nations. They want their allies, their operators, the former Victor Yushenkos and the current Yulia Timoshenko to be free and to operate further on the Western agenda in Ukraine.

Hillary Clinton keeps making statements - it’s kind of become a habit for her – towards Russia. What about her last statement? Can you comment on this?

The most recent is probably the worst. It’s probably too low even for Hillary Clinton. And it’s saying quite a bit. And what we’re speaking about is of course her talk on so-called Friends of Syria Meeting in Paris on July, 6th, where she stated to the representatives of the estimated 100 nations and organizations transparently in attempt to rally them against Russia and China for having the temerity to defend international law and as we just mentioned the noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations vis-à-vis Syria. One has to watch her as she’s making these statements, you know, waving her hand in the air and being almost hysterical. She stated that the problem was that Russia and China were not paying the price for their position in relation to Syria and that they would have to pay a price and that the so-called world community would have to ensure that they do. So, I mean, this is the crudest form of intimidation.

What do you think she meant exactly by ‘paying a price’?

It’s hard to say. Diplomatically, of course. Economically, perhaps. You know maybe what the US and their allies want to do with Russia and China in relation to Syria is the same that they did with several countries including Russia and China in relation to Iran, they increasingly slap sanctions on a country like Iran or Syria and start sanctioning countries dealing with it. Something like the situation obtained in in 2003 when the George W. Bush Administration started accusing perhaps dozens of countries of selling the so-called “dual-use” equipment to the government of Iraq and threatening them with – if you will – second generation sanctions, - if you got to be alluding to that you know economically as well as diplomatically punishing Russia and China. However, the tone of what she stated, suggested that she was talking about something more, almost threatening Russia and China politically, who knows what? But it was a further thing removed from diplomatic language that one can imagine. But given the fact that she is the Secretary of State of the administration that probably proclaims itself in amusing President Obama’s own words “the world’s sole military superpower,” she evidently feels she can make statements like that with impunity and that nobody is going to hold her to account for that. Unfortunately, the world is not. It gets worse, I suppose, with each succession of Secretary of State, but this is a low point. She made a statement in February this year, the second time that Russia and China jointly vetoed the resolution on the UN Security Council aimed against Syria where – to use her own words – she referred to Russia and China as being ‘despicable’. I think that the rest of the world should take notice as to how the US treats even major powers, the world’s second economic power, China, and one of the world’s two major military powers, Russia. If they can be referred to in such derogatory and abrasive terms then you don’t need a WikiLeaks’ revelation to understand what US thinks of the governments of other nations.

Can you tell our listeners about the recent attack on a NATO convoy to Afghanistan through Pakistan?

Being attributor to a Pakistani-Taliban group or the Haghani network – I’m not sure who’s been accused of having torched the 12 NATO tankers - but I would say, John, more than anything else this is indicative, I believe, as a general sentiment within Pakistan which is not in favor of renewing transit NATO convoys from Pakistan into Afghanistan. I’m sure there’s overwhelming opposition to collaboration with NATO for the war in Afghanistan for no other reason than that the people in Western Pakistan don’t relish the cousins on the other side of the border being killed by NATO helicopter gunship attacks or in other military attacks including some of the horrible atrocities that have occurred just this year for example. And what we’re seeing again is that to accommodate NATO is to betray one’s own nation, and one’s people no matter where it occurs. 

PART1 US Forcing Former Soviet Allies into NATO

22 July 2012, 22:59 Download audio file

In the second part of an interview with the Voice of Russia, NATO expert Rick Rozoff outlines the U.S. plans to bring former Soviet Republics and allies into the alliance’s sphere of influence and away from Russia, isolating Russia and China, and eventually surrounding them with NATO member countries. Mr. Rozoff also speaks of U.S. plans to stay in Afghanistan

This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list, and a contributing writer to

An article appeared in one of the major newspapers. I’ve heard it referred to as the major newspaper in Slovenia, a couple of weeks ago that stated that the largest and worst mistake made by the Government of Slovenia was joining NATO, that what that has entailed is far from defending the territory of NATO’s member states, that it is simply waging wars worldwide. That was followed very shortly thereafter, a couple of days ago, by the Head of the Orthodox Church in Montenegro, the Metropolitan, who made a similar statement. He said the NATO should breakup, that it is guilty of waging aggression upon people throughout the world.

So, I think what you are starting to see even in south-east Europe and perhaps other nations that have been dragooned into NATO without first thoroughly explaining to the population what NATO membership entails. And what it entails in the case of countries like Slovenia and Montenegro is sending their sons and daughters off to some endless and useless war like that in Afghanistan. And what is happening in Pakistan is not too similar to that, it is a case where if a government, if a regime, accommodates NATO demands, they are violating the trust and undermining the wellbeing of their own nation and their own people, and this is in fact what is going on in Pakistan.

We heard a statement by Hilary Clinton before that supply route was opened.

Yes, I haven’t read the complete text by Hilary Clinton but I’d bet anything the substance of it was that she regrets the unfortunate incident or words to that effect that occurred in Salalah where 24 Pakistani military personal were killed last November. But certainly something short of acknowledging that the US had committed a crime. We have to recall that wasn’t too long of Hillary Clinton made a tour to Central Asia where she went to, I believe, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. And shortly thereafter as your listeners know, Uzbekistan suspended its participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization with Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Armenia.

So, it appears that the State Department has succeeded once again in pulling a country out of an organization of which Russia is a member and through which Uzbekistan was allied with Russia, to separate it from Russia and China and to pull it into the US orbit. After Clinton left Paris on July 6 we know she went to Afghanistan where she proclaimed Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally of the US meaning they get preferential arrangements with weapons and so forth. But identifying Afghanistan as a strategic American military ally indefinitely. So, that hardly suggests the US intends to leave the area.

But I think even more significant than that was after having left Afghanistan and gone for a one day conference on Afghanistan to Japan, is that she then went to Mongolia, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. And if your listeners are as old as me, or older, they recall that all four of those countries were political allies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War period, Mongolia since almost the formation of the Soviet Union, but in the case of the unified Vietnam and Laos from 1975, and Cambodia after the overthrow of the pro-Chinese Khmer Rouge in 1979.

So, if we need any further evidence of the US far from having ended the Cold War, it is simply consummating its victory of 20 some years ago by moving on the territory that is geographically close, and in many cases, as in Laos and Vietnam, bordering China, and in the case of Mongolia bordering both Russia and China. And recruiting not only political and economic, but ultimately military allies throughout the world, but more particularly now in Eurasia and in the backyard of Russia and China both, Central Asia fits into that pattern. If the five former Soviet Central Asian republics are increasingly integrated into the US sphere of influence, then this essentially isolates Russia and China in Eurasia.

Hilary Clinton said that the US had never planned to leave Afghanistan.

You know, the US’s cards are truly not on the table when it comes to Afghanistan. I heard the same statement and it is remarkable because a few years ago, perhaps when she first became the Secretary of State, about that time, she made what on the surface was one of the more candid statements I’ve heard by any US military official about the genesis of the crisis in Afghanistan. Acknowledging in so many words that it was the US support for the so called Mujahidin forces in, operating out of northwest Pakistan, from the late 70’es through to 1992, that was really the basis for all the disorganization and the conflict that has occurred in Afghanistan since then, she made that statement maybe three or four years ago.

But she then mouthed the conventional American wisdom on the subject saying – our mistake – I’m paraphrasing her – was then to have pulled out and left the country to internal fighting between the US’s former Mujahidin allies, and in fact that occurred as we know after 1992 when they were rocketing parts of the capital of Kabul in rivalry amongst each other. And subsequent to that by four years the Taliban marches in and takes control of the country. So, what Clinton’s most recent statement at the donor’s conference, or the Conference on Afghanistan in Japan, seems to be simply a reiteration of that – we won’t make the same mistake. If we overthrow the Government in Afghanistan and allow our clients to takeover, we will this time stay there and support them, is how I read that.

Moving on to Syria. A Syrian general, Major General Adnan Salo, he was the former Head of the Chemical Weapons Unit of the Syrian Army, he’s made public statements calling for NATO intervention, although he says limited military intervention is needed. He said that they need two airstrikes on the presidential palace to get rid of Assad. Do you think this is going to happen?

I sincerely hope it doesn’t. And I similarly hope that this is simply bravado. But it could be too a trial balloon to see what the world’s reaction is to inflammatory statements of this sort. The idea that you bomb the presidential palace in the name of protecting civilians or humanitarian concerns and so forth shows you just how far down the road to barbarism the world has evolved over the past twenty years. It won’t be the first time that’s happened of course, efforts to bomb the presidential palace in Yugoslavia in 1999. And apparently anything is a fair game at this point.

PART2 OSCE to Monitor Anti-NATO Protests in Chicago

14 May 2012, 17:33  Download audio file

Interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to He will be debating NATO officials in Chicago on May 17th in a first ever event where those opposed to NATO are allowed to voice their concerns.

I heard that on the 17th of May you are planning to debate former NATO officials and current NATO officials. This is first debate of this type in history I believe. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about that?

Thank you for asking, John. It’s scheduled Thursday evening at 6 o’clock in downtown Chicago at what’s called the Pritzker Military Library, it’s probably an apt site for the discussion of NATO. As I’ve last heard two spokespeople advocating the NATO position, and those are Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the State Department and current NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary for Political and Security Affairs James Appathurai are going to be presenting the NATO position. I’ve been asked to be one of two what identified in Chicago media as protesters who are going to be speaking against NATO. Initially Andy Thayer who is a leader in the coalition against NATO G8 War and Poverty Agenda (CANG8), for short, was to be the other speaker from the anti-NATO position. I now hear that a representative from either Iraq or Afghanistan war veterans, is going to be speaking instead of Andy Thayer, so it will be the two of us.

Can you tell me a little bit of the format?

In my understanding each of the four of us is going to give a presentation and then there will be questions field from the audience. It’s going to be a very select group, there’s going to be 100 people permitted into the library in addition to media.

Who was behind the planning of this event?

It’s sponsored by the local Chicago think tank. Though, it’s my understanding, John, that somehow, I don’t know who contacted whom, the prime mover in permitting a discussion that has both sides being heard was emanated from the White House.

You mentioned before we started something about two OSCE parliamentarians. Are they going to be in attendance?

I heard from another leader of CANG8 that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) announced that they were going to send two, perhaps three European parliamentarians as part of the delegation to monitor the protest in the city of Chicago’s response to that, which would mark only the second time that an OSCE delegation has been sent to the United States, and the previous time was during 2008 presidential election and if in fact that’s true and that materializes, that may in part have led to the White House having them to make a concession to allow some form of public debate on the issue because to be frank with you, there has been none up until now. When the decision was made between the White House and Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel last year there was no debate, there was no discussion with the City Council of Chicago and the neighborhoods that are going to be effected pretty adversely, as no community leaders and so forth were consulted, it was dealt with as a fait accompli.

How did you become involved in this? Were you chosen?

Andy Thayer of CANG8 invited me to join him initially, now it looks like it may be again an Iraq or Afghanistan war veteran and myself presenting the anti-NATO position.

Can you tell our listeners a little bit of what NATO was doing to promote their position in the U.S. and why and where all this money is coming from? So they’ve made a huge PR campaign in the Chicago area, I believe.

There is a host committee for the NATO Summit, which is headed up by former political officials but there is corporate sponsorship that is matter of fact goes to the website for the NATO Chicago Summit, they’ll have the corporate logos of major Fortune 500 type companies that have raised an estimated $37 billion (Mr. Rozoff apologized and asked that billion be corrected to million. Robles)  in corporate moneys for the summit in addition to what the Federal and the City Government are going to spend. The argument that many people make including myself that NATO is essentially the international armed wing of the one percent could not be made any more effectively or vividly than visiting the website for the Chicago Summit and looking at corporate logos that stand behind the NATO meeting on May 20 and 21.

Recently somebody, NATO spokesman I think, said that NATO was the war machine for any percent.

I believe that comment emanates from Ivo Daalder who is U.S. Ambassador and NATO currently and he is somebody who 6 years ago co-authored an article that was published in Washington Post and also on the website of the Brookings Institution where Daalder is on leave as a senior fellow, but the title of article was “Global NATO”. So, we are talking about somebody who in fact envisions, and keep in mind he is the envoy for the most part the member of the military block, the United States, and that somebody that for several years has been touting in exactly those words, the concept of an international worldwide NATO that can intervene (at will) any place it chooses. Any organization that has waged war in three continents since 1999 as NATO has, in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya, is certainly a war machine.

What can you tell our listeners about G8 Summit being moved to Camp David and what’s the relation between that and the NATO Summit happening in Chicago?

The two were to have occured not simultaneously but back to back. The G8 Summit was to have occurred on the 18th and 19th of this month and the NATO Summit on the 20th and 21st. And when the news first broke in spring of last year that Chicago would host them both, the announcement was made simultaneously, it was, if you will, a package deal, then several weeks ago the White House rather abruptly and without any explanations, the accounts in Chicago are that the Mayor himself, Emanual wasn’t even aware of the fact that it was being pulled until he heard it on the news. I can tell you my personal supposition, which is this: that in the interim between the time it was announced both the G8 and the NATO Summit to be held in the United States and the announcement by the White House they were relocated the G8 Summit to Camp David in Maryland, the Occupy movement sprang into existence in September of last year and I would assume that the White House was afraid that the demonstrations against both Summits would be large enough to create a political embarrassment, both for the city of Chicago and for the country, certainly for the Administration and thought that by relocating the G8 Summit they could take attention away form the NATO demonstration. I believe that it has backfired. Instead there will be a large public demonstration on the 20th . I am hoping that it will be possibly the largest counter-NATO demonstration ever held against the backdrop of the Summit. If you recall in Lisbon, Portugal in November 2010, I’ve heard estimates from 10-30 thousand protesters. It would be my sincerest wish that the people of Chicago and the joining states could turn out a force larger than that.

Larger than 30,000 people?

That would be ideal. Larger that 10,000 would be great.

Time to Draw a Line for NATO

1 March 2012, 13:03 Download audio file    

Interview with Mr. Rick Rosoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has written is a white paper regarding Russian security and the upgrading of Russian military forces in response to NATO’s expansion. Can you give us some view insights into this?

Interview with Mr. Rick Rosoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has written is a white paper regarding Russian security and the upgrading of Russian military forces in response to NATO’s expansion. Can you give us some view insights into this?

I’m probably not that familiar with all the particularities as you are but I think I understand the gesture which is right in the phase of increased military hardware by the United States and its NATO alliance being brought closer to Russia’s border and we are talking particularly about the so called missile shield that is placing interceptor missiles capable of knocking out other nations’ missiles and radars to accompany those missile deployment. So that Russia needs to be able to protect its strategic military potential against the efforts to neutralize it.

Early this month Prime Minister Putin made a comment and a pretty straight forward one that neither Iran nor North Korea poses any missile problem so that this development he, quite accurately by the way, described as a global missile shield with the European component. And that reflects what was said by the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov early this year, he used the same expression because in fact that’s what it is – it’s an effort to be able to have sea and land based interceptor missiles placed strategically to achieve global dominance. Putin was also alluding, without naming it as such, to what we understand to be as a grand global strike concept.

When he said that certain countries, and he meant the United States in the first place without naming it, are developing the capability to deliver high precision, long range missiles with conventional loads and that’s a grand global strike. And as the Prime Minister put it, strategic weapons are of the same effect, it’s just another word but they have the same ability to upset the international balance of military force in the world but also to be able to ultimately destroy the military potential of other countries short of using nuclear weapons. That’s grand global strike.

What do you think about the current situation? Last time we talked about Ambassador McFaul and this before there was supposed to be this bigger opposition rallies. They’ve come and gone, they were a big disappointment, I’m sure, for Mr. McFaul. What do you think about this orange threat, is it really a threat?

Now it looks like it’s been diffused, I mean there are certainly efforts taken by the usual cast of characters – a broad gallery of US agencies like the US Agency for International Development, USIA and others.

Do you think the Russian Federation has the technology to be able to neutralize the attempted neutralization of its own forces?

Yes, counterneutralization, if you will. I sincerely hope it does. Recently it has been confirmed that the US is deploying a four-aged class guided missile destroyers permanently to the Rota naval base in Spain, to be used in the Mediterranean and that’s adding to the recently deployed missile shield radar in Turkey and so forth. And also the United States confirmed after the meeting of the US and Georgian Presidents – Barack Obama and Mikhail Saakashvilli, that the US is going to help rebuilding the so called military defense capability of Georgia.

Another comment by Vladimir Putin that has been reported today, he is talking about the fact that certain countries, and again we know who he is speaking about – the United States and its NATO allies, are fomenting and stalking conflicts near and on the borders of Russia and its allies. I have paraphrased but your listeners will get the idea. And earlier we talked about the efforts by certain officials in the United States and I’m sure the US embassy in Moscow fomented the so called color revolution type political activities in Russia and having failed that, and these people, and I’m talking about the West, of course are intended to win and to have their will forced in the world by fair or foul means. And as they fail in one respect, they resort to another.

We have to keep in mind by the way as the presidential elections are coming up the political elite in the United States and other NATO capitals hold against Vladimir Putin. Aside from all domestic and foreign policy issues there is one overriding grudge their bear against him and that’s for a nine minutes speech at the Munich Security Conference in February of 2007. For people familiar with the Aesopian fable about the cat and the mice, what he did was, he belled the cat. He identified to the world and the world heard him that in the past twenty years it’s been the emergence of, and I use his own wording, a unipolar world. I believe these are the exact terms of the time where there is now one center of power, one center of force, one center of decision making and the world battles under that sort of unilateral domination.

And it’s for that speech, I believe more than anything else, it is for that that he will never be forgiven and it’s for that the United States would not like to see him become the President of the Russian Federation but of course again they are not going to be able to prevent it. But what the US is doing relentlessly of course is increasing its strategic and missile shield capabilities dangerously close to Russia’s borders, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea of the Caucuses. 

McFaul, he was the supposed the architect of this “reset”, now people are saying that if Vladimir Putin becomes the President of the Russian Federation again the “reset” will be over. What do you think about that?

I think the “reset” can’t be over, I think it was stall-born. I don’t believe that there can be anything in the public relations gamboled by the United States. The fact that the US and NATO still refuse to give Russia any guarantees whatsoever that the so called European Phased Adaptive Approach Missile Shield System, which becoming more ambitious with each succeeding phase, is not targeted against Russia. And in fact what Vladimir Putin said recently was that as Iran and as North Korea are not the threats or betrayers, then the missile shield is indeed aimed at Russia and the same does the strategic potential on the west of the country.

In one year what do you see the relations between Russia and NATO?

If NATO continues to aggressively assert itself as a self proclaimed international security provider, to use the youth, which is a military alliance willing and able to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations with military means to its disgrace, then Russia is going to have to draw a line and the world is going to have to draw a line.

Russia’s Nuclear Forces in Danger?

23 March 2012, 12:41   Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the Manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a Contributing Writer to

What do you think will be some of the evidence that Ministry of Defense will present very soon proving the ABM shield is a danger to Russia’s nuclear forces?

You are referring of course to the statement by Russian Defense Minister Serdyukov about a conference that will be held in Moscow in early May.

One can speculate about what evidence the Russian Defense Ministry and government as a whole is prepared to present but if we are to trust an account run in today’s RosBusinessConsulting, quoting Kommersant, the newspaper, there are some concerns that the velocity of the Standard Missile 3, SM-3’s, that the U.S. intends to deploy in Romania and Poland as well as their ship-based equivalents. Should that velocity be intensified that in the words of the Russian daily the U.S. NATO missile system could threaten Russian strategic nuclear potential.

There is another component to that, incidentally, which is; from its inception, Prompt Global Strike program is to include intercontinental ballistic missiles, which the U.S. states will be equipped with non-nuclear warheads, with conventional warheads. Of course taking the U.S.’ word on that, that an ICBM would be used to deliver a nuclear warhead, nevertheless this is a question of trust; whether a country like Russia and China takes the word of the United States that the ICBM heading towards them or in the general direction of their country, is or is not equipped with a nuclear warhead, and this has been a consistent pattern on behalf of the Pentagon and the White House, on one hand, and NATO headquarters and Brussels, on the other, or jointly rather. Where they are loathe to divulge any meaningful details and they are certainly not willing to give any assurances, which would include for example the possibility of Russia inspecting both radar and the missile sites that have been installed and will be installed in South Eastern Europe and Turkey as well as throughout Eastern Europe.

We have to keep in mind by the way what we are talking about with the U.S. system is something that in the autumn of 2009, the incoming at that time Obama administration, referred to as the European Phased Adaptive Approach. That is, it’s a four-pronged process of introducing increasingly larger and more sophisticated missile and radar deployments in the area of the Baltic Sea in Poland, in the area of the Black Sea in Romania, and recently what’s referred to as a Forward-based X-Band Transportable Missile Radar facility in Turkey, which is now operational. And this is the U.S. component, the major component of the Phased Adaptive Approach. However, at the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal in November of 2010 NATO endorsed the U.S. plan and is integrating it with two other NATO programs, one of which is called Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense and the other – NATO program that goes by the acronym of MEADS, Medium Extended Air Defense System, which is a joint project of the United States, Germany and Italy. Incidentally, the Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile System was… achieved interim operational capability last November, where there was for the first time a live fire exercise of a missile for that purpose. So what we are looking at is an increasingly broad stratified sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system, which includes an intensification of what are refered to as Aegis class U.S. warships, which carry the sea-based version of the Standard Missile 3. Just last week the Netherlands announced it is going to upgrade four frigates for radar purposes for the U.S. NATO missile system.

What can you tell our listeners about the upgrades?

There are constant upgrades, that aren’t always publicly acknowledged, for example, in May of 2010 the opening salvo of the U.S. interceptor missile system in Europe was fired when the U.S. deployed a Patriot Missile Battery in Polish city of Morag on the Baltic Sea, which is only some 40 miles from Russian territory from the Kaliningrad district, and this is the newest and most sophisticated longest range version of the Patriot, it’s referred to as Patriot Advanced Capability-3, but there is also an enhancement, which is called Missile Segment Enhancement that permits an even greater distance, and I believe what Russia fears is the Standard Missile 3, which has been used up until now strictly on ships, will be, when they are based on land in Romania, Poland and who knows where else after that, also enhanced in such a manner to give them greater velocity and greater range.

The other thing Russia has to be worried about is that more advanced interceptor missiles could follow the SM-3’s and thinking particularly of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, the acronym is THAAD, that can intercept not only short and medium, but intermediate range missiles, (there is actually a distinction between medium and intermediate) and then behind that what the George W. Bush administration had planned to install in Poland, 10 Ground-Based Midcourse weapons, which can intercept missiles in space. So, you know, U.S. and NATO assurances have been proved less than trustworthy in the past, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. may exceed its announced goal, the four-phased European Adaptive Approach and institute in its place or in addition to that, more advanced weapons like the THAAD and the ground-based midcourse weapons.

Recently Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered NATO the Vostochny airport in Uliyanovsk. Have you heard about this?

I have no idea what Russian national interest Mr. Lavrov is defending. You know, we have to keep in mind that referring to NATO and the Pentagon as partners, when just this week as a matter of fact there’s an unprecedented NATO war game going on in the Arctic with 16,000 troops, and that’s of course could only be aimed against Russia, and simultaneously 300 U.S. marines are in Georgia conducting the second of what have now become annual, joint military exercises called Agile Spirit. So that you have the southern border of Russia and the north-western border of Russia with U.S. and NATO military exercises going on, and to accommodate NATO in any manner by setting up a transit center in Ulyanovsk to ease their transition out of Afghanistan seems to me perhaps not the most well advised move. I believe to allow NATO and U.S. cargo planes to fly over Russian territory, with assurances in that case that they don’t carry surveillance equipment and so forth, is something I would want to look into very closely before I permitted it to occur were I an official of the Russian government.


Violence in Russia Would Satisfy US

4 February 2012, 21:08   Download audio file

Interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

I’d like to speak today a little bit about color revolutions. I think we will go back to Saakashvili, Mr. McFaul might play into this and all these demonstrations going on all over the world.

Yes, one of the more significant developments of the past decade is, you know, what is euphemistically referred to as color revolutions, and you are right, to cite the example of the current head of state, I hesitate to call him president, Mikhail Saakashvili in Georgia, who came to power on the back of the prototype of the color revolution, what was called “The Rose Revolution”. It was shortly thereafter followed by a comparable development in Ukraine, the so called “Orange Revolution”, and the following year the US State Department and its various adjuncts stepped up the pressure to replicate that model in several countries both within the former Soviet Union and outside it. I’m thinking of the so called “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan in March of 2005 and subsequently the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon and a number of others in the interim. It’s a method for unconstitutionally unseating a standing head of state through a series of what are referred to as demonstrations and other non-violent actions but which in many cases are very coordinated efforts to attempt to delegitimize the standing government in the eyes of its populace and certainly to do so in the eyes of the international community. They generally occur, the prototype again being in Georgia in 2003, they generally occur against the backdrop of national elections.

Do you see parallels in Russia 2012 after parliamentary elections leading into presidential elections?

Well, the fact that the parliamentary and presidential elections are occurring so close together, the parliamentary elections in December and of course March 4th the presidential election, gives time for, what is referred to by Russian political analysts sometimes, political technologies to be able to be put in place and to build up momentum. We have to recall for example that maybe the real prototype of the color revolutions is what is enduringly known in the West as the “Bulldozer Revolution” in Yugoslavia in the year 2000, that at that time there were methods of communication by anti-government forces that were fairly limited compared to those in existent now.

For example, I just saw in Novosty a few minutes ago the fact that the Russian “Opposition”, or the coalition of opposition forces claims to have recruited 30,000 people, I can guess their age incidentally, through social networks, that is social media like Twitter and Facebook. It was roughly a year ago today that the US Secretary State Hillary Clinton announced at the State Department, which at that time had recently started that Twitter feed in Arabic and Farsi, revealing languages considering what has happened in the interim, was going to expand those Twitter feeds into Russian, Hindi and Chinese. So, the social networks that are recruiting people for anti-government marches in Russia are ones that the State Department openly acknowledges as playing a direct role in, meaning its interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation of course and it’s interfering particularly in terms of elections.

What can you tell us about the new Ambassador to Russia – Mr. McFaul? I think what he did was unprecedented, I can’t think of any other examples ever, anywhere in the world where an ambassador has come into a country and the first thing he does is meet with opposition politicians and opposition leaders, an opposition, I might add, that appeared not long ago.

Yes, immediately ahead of the presidential elections. Were the situation to be reversed, any newly appointed Russian Ambassador who acted in that manner, would be declared persona-non-grata and expelled from the country. The fact that on the second day on the job Mr. McFaul, who came to that position from being in the Obama Administration’s National Security Council Advisor on Russian and Eurasian Affairs revealingly enough and who was cited as having acted as the so called advisor to Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996 during the presidential election, one that, the results of which were controversial even on this side of the Atlantic.

There’s a…on the Wikipedia entry on Mr. MacFaul, there is a quote attributed to Russian news portal in which McFaul delivered an interview and described himself, if this account is to be trusted, as, and I quote Wikipedia quoting McFaul, “a specialist in democracy, anti-dictator movements and revolutions”. This fellow in fact sees himself in that capacity and on the second day again, of his taking charge of his position as the US envoy to Russia, he met with the coalition of opposition forces, then to claim in any way or form that he is not interfering in the internal affairs of Russia is ludicrous.

Why would the US be interested in doing this now?

The United States wants to weaken Russia in any capacity regardless of who the head of state would be. The fact that Vladimir Putin in his earlier term as President of the Russian Federation made statements challenging the uni-polar world, one power dictating terms to the rest of humanity and so forth, hardly endeared him to Western policy makers, particularly those who would like to see NATO expansion progress into the South Caucasus and into the Ukraine and so forth. It’s very important to note that the first two official colored revolutions, those in Georgian and Ukraine were followed immediately by an intensification of the integration of those two countries into arrangements with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

As a matter of fact that in the year of 2008, shortly after Georgia provoked a war with Russia by invading South Ossetia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization setup what they call Annual National Programs with both Georgia and Ukraine and the United States setup roughly at the same time what were called Charter on Strategic Partnerships with both Georgia and Ukraine. So, colored revolutions are followed by increased NATO integration as certainly as night follows day.

But I think there are a number of objectives in terms of Mr. Mcfaul’s appointment to the ambassadorship to Russia and what his role is likely to be between now and the presidential elections on March 4th, the US may not realistically expect to be able to affect the outcome of the Russian election. But they certainly can attempt the standard color revolution approach of discrediting government institutions in the country, trying to alienate and antagonize sectors of the electorate and also on the international scene to try to discredit Russia as a whole. They have several degrees of objectives if you will, and just simply bring chaos or dissension, you know, if some form of violence can be provoked in the process, the US would be even more satisfied with the outcome.

It is one thing to engage in a standard electoral or political opposition to the government, it is another thing to accept foreign monies from a power that’s increasingly hostile. I mean we have established the fact that no one less than the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the State Department is tweating in the Russian language to an audience in Russia, and this is the same Hillary Clinton who said the parliamentary elections in December last year were “neither free nor fair”, so you can imagine what the content is of the State Department propaganda going into people’s cell phones in Russia.


Saakashvili: NATO’s Favorite Little Despot

25 January 2012, 13:46 Download audio file 

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list, a contributing writer to, and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.

Mikhail Saakashvili, some have called him NATO’s favorite despot.

I think that’s an accurate characterization of Mr. Saakashvili, yes.

He made some statements that the Russian Empire is about to collapse.

Yeah, he’s been making statements along that line for a couple of weeks, maybe longer. It’s a repeated leitmotif for Mr. Saakashvili that the Empire, I take it that’s a borrowing from a person he no doubt admired greatly, Ronald Reagan, and his, 30 years ago, his reference to the former Soviet Union as being "The Evil Empire". I imagine Saakashvili knows what sort of terminology to use to be picked up in the west, but yesterday he made quite characteristic comments, but were they to be made by any other head of state, they would certainly raise a few eyebrows around the world, but not when it comes from Mr. Saakashvili. For example, speaking again about Russia, Russia was now, and I quote him - “like crazy”- because Georgia not only survived the war that it provoked with South Ossetia and Russia in August of 2008. And since he came into power in the back of the so-called “Rose Revolution” in 2003, Mr. Saakashvili - U.S. educated incidentally, Columbia graduate - he’s clearly modelled himself after a medieval Georgian monarch, one David the Builder, and in his speech yesterday Mr. Saakashvlili evoked once again King David and Queen Tamara. But then at another point, referring to Russia, and I am quoting this from Civil Georgia, an English language website from the nation, this is in Georgia’s political reality, “Political vampires, mummies and various monsters will not be able to return”, and so forth. So, this sort of lunatic verbiage is what we’ve come to expect from Mr. Saakashvili, notwithstanding which, however, he remains, as I mentioned, a pet despot of NATO countries, and their political darling outside the Euro-Atlantic area.


He serves their purposes. He and his regime have recently authorized the deployment of another large military unit of Georgian troops to Afghanistan to serve under NATO’s international security assistance force. When they arrive to join their cohorts already there, the Georgian troop contingent in Afghanistan will be the largest of any non-full NATO member, exceeding even the 1550 troops that Australia currently has in Afghanistan. So they are providing cannon fodder.

How many troops are there from Georgia?

It will be over 1600.

Back to Afghanistan, can you fill us in also, you know about this scandal with the marines and that trophy video?

For those of us who have seen it, I assume you have and I regret that I have, it is - I don’t even know the proper adjectives to use in a case like this - appalling, repugnant, but also I am afraid, reflective of the attitude of the 21st century new colonial troops that NATO has deployed, you know, in the Balkans and South Asia and so forth, and U.S. military forces around the world who evidently believe they can commit any kind of, not only gruesome, but degrading act of any sort; you know, an ultimate insult to the nation, of course, of which they are occupying with impunity, because there is no force big enough to make them pay the consequences of this sort of actions. You are, of course, referring to a video that’s gone around the world of four, what are identified as four U.S. marines in Afghanistan, joking while the four of them urinate on the corpses of what are identified as Taliban fighters, dead Taliban fighters. Heaven knows who they truly were, but to commit an action like that is appalling to a degree imaginable, and the soldiers, of course, are treating this as all good fun, U.S. marines, and it’s part of a series of similar behaviors including cutting off body parts as trophies and such like, in the name of spreading civilization and democracy to Afghanistan.

Do you think, maybe this was orchestrated?

As I was just saying that anyone who was killed in Afghanistan or on the other side of the border in Pakistan is automatically referred to not only by the U.S. and NATO officials but by their ever-obedient mass media in the west as being Taliban or al-Qaeda. They could simply be militiamen; they could be people fighting to defend their country against foreign occupation. But on the broader question of whether the timing of the release of these videos, one can never rule out in the world of psi-ops and black-ops, that provocative material is released or permitted to be released at a given period with an ulterior motive.

Anyone who’s fighting against the United States is actually some sort of weird terrorist, even if they're defending their own country.

Right. That could be like Serbian women in northern Kosovo, who are…

Sure, terrorists!

Yeah, they are “terrorists” for, you know, opposing NATO actions to deprive them of what's left of their homeland. It can be Libyans defending their country against bombings.

They all are terrorists.

Evidently anyone with any shred of dignity, self-respect and national pride would be referred to as terrorist.

Can you give our listeners a rundown, what’s the real situation there on the ground?

There may be a sincere desire by the United States to extricate itself from Afghanistan by making whatever deal they have to cut, even with their alleged adversaries, you know their adversaries of the last decade. You know, militarily it’s gone catastrophically for the U.S. and NATO and it’s the longest war in America’s history.

After 10 years what are they leaving behind?

Devastation, dislocation, hundreds of thousands of Afghans forced to flee their towns and villages; heaven knows what sort of unexploded ordnance, depleted uranium, and so forth have been strewn throughout the country in the past 10 years, certainly, nothing good; and heroin-opium cultivation epidemic, of course.

What about the thousands of men in prison in Afghanistan accused of being terrorists, being detained indefinitely without charges?

In far from closing down the torture chambers in Guantanamo Bay, or in Bagram, in Afghanistan, and so forth, as you are alluding to, the U.S. government now, the White House, has officially signed off on the Defense Authorization Act that would permit the internment of U.S. citizens under basically martial law conditions, military trials without recourse or access to the standard legal protection.

I talk a lot against NATO. You do too. Could we be called terrorists?

You know, that’s probably more serious a question than we both realize at the moment.

So, we should really be afraid that we could be picked up and taken to Guantanamo tomorrow?

Technically speaking, even American citizens residing in the United States might be susceptible to that sort of treatment.

Where Will America’s Imperial Hubris Lead To?

29 December 2011, 20:18   Download audio file  

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

Can you give us the latest on NATO and your predictions for 2012, as far as the ABM system in Europe and NATO global expansion in general? I know it’s a big question.

The past year, of course, has been a momentous one. I think it’s has been a very troubling one in many regards. What we’ve seen this year in regard to NATO and what we’re likely to see an intensification of next year, 2012, is a follow-up on the strategic concept, as they call it, adopted at the Lisbon summit in November 2010, which is unveiling and unleashing NATO as an increasingly global political and military player. We saw this with the seven-month air war campaign against Libya, of course, earlier this year when NATO flew an estimated 26,000 air missions against a small country with six million people, over 9,000 of which were combat sorties. We are seeing that as a template. That’s pretty much what NATO officials and heads of state of major NATO countries have characterized it. We are likely to see more of that most prominently, of course, – it can’t be missed – in one manner or another in relation to Syria, but with any number of other potential military interventions. Your listeners are probably aware of the fact that the Collective Security Treaty Organization met in Russia two days ago, on the 10th anniversary of the founding of the only security block within the CIS, amongst former Soviet States. And one of the statements – rather straightforward and candid – was warning about military intervention in the internal affairs of the countries beset by domestic problems. That’s clearly an allusion to the Libyan action by the major NATO powers but also in reference to the current crisis in Syria. A Wednesday statement by the White House saying that the government of Bashar al-Assad “does not deserve to rule Syria” is an indication that, far from being humbled by the recent symbolically important, I suppose, withdrawal of the final US military forces from Iraq, far from being humbled by the debacle on Iraq and the equally catastrophic experience in Afghanistan, the US is still ordering heads of state to resign, as they did earlier this year in Ivory Coast, in Libya and may tomorrow in Belarus, Venezuela and a number of other countries. We still see the imperial hubris of the major Western countries, US in the first instance, in determining who else is not fit to govern most every country in the world.

What was the connection with Gbagbo? You mentioned Ivory Coast.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and other major US officials ordered Gbagbo to step down. They didn’t recognize the results of the runoff election last December in Ivory Coast. The irony is – it’s so transparent it has to be undeniable – in the US a comparable situation, of course, and a far worse situation, existed in 2000 where George W. Bush received half a million votes less than his opponent and through the decision made by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, Bush, the recipient of the fewer votes was designated the elected president of the United States. Something comparable happened with the decision by the Elections Commission in Ivory Coast but the US, which has one set of rules for itself and another for the rest of the world, determined that the decision reached by the court in Ivory Coast was invalid and the one in 2000 in the US was valid, because it was in the US.

I thought that maybe there was a NATO connection that I hadn’t heard anything about there in Ivory Coast.

No, there wasn’t a NATO connection, but French military forces were instrumental in assaulting government buildings in Abidjan, the commercial capital of the country, and directly in the capture of Gbagbo. NATO countries, if not collectively under the banner of NATO, were certainly instrumental there. I’ve sighted that as part of the pattern over past year Washington has ordered in some many ways heads of state to step down, including Saleh, the President of Yemen, Assad in Syria, and Gbagbo in Ivory Coast and Gaddafi in Libya. So, it’s four heads of state that they ordered to step down this year.

Can you tell our listeners a little bit about Kosovo and Serbia?

Yes. I have friends in Kosovo and I have friends from Kosovo – ethnic Serbs and others. The situation is that of the few remaining non-Albanian ethnic minorities in Kosovo, I’ve seen estimates as high as 250,000 ethnic Serbs who have fled the country in terror. Several thousands have been killed, of course, since NATO came in June of 1999. I’ve seen comparable figures for Roma people, so-called Gypsies, including Ashkalis and Egyptians, as they are known in Kosovo. Other ethnic minority groups suffered similarly. And today I saw a few days ago a tape of the so-called “president” of Kosovo meeting Hillary Clinton at the White House to sign an agreement on protecting the cultural heritage of Kosovo, when several hundred Orthodox monasteries, churches, cemeteries and so forth have been desecrated and destroyed. It’s not ignorance. Clinton knows pretty well this story. Her husband, after all, is the person responsible for starting a 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, which wrested Kosovo from Yugoslavia and Serbia. This is again the imperial arrogance I was speaking about earlier that Washington arrogates to itself the exclusive prerogative, or at least in relation to its NATO allies and certain key non-NATO allies, to determine how national boundaries can and cannot be drawn, which political entities are to be recognized as legitimate countries, such as when NATO recognized the state of Kosovo but denied the same right to nations like Abkhazia or South Ossetia.

"U.S not in a position to criticize Russian elections"

8 December 2011, 17:00   Download audio file   

Interview with  Rick Rozoff , the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Mr. Rozoff also worked "against the Chicago political machine" for approximately 25 years, from 1976-2000, including as: a ward-wide voter registration coordinator, the founder and leader of an independent ward organization, a congressional district coordinator for Mayor Harold Washington's 1987 reelection bid, a campaign manager in two state representative and one alderman election, and as a third party candidate for state office.

What’s the reaction there to the Russian elections? We’ve heard a lot of statements that I think are way out of line from the US State Department, in particular Hillary Clinton. What’s your opinion of those statements?

They are outrageous. They are unwarranted. Regardless of what the actual details are about the recently concluded Duma elections, parliamentary elections in Russia, the statements emanating, as you mentioned, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, are arrogant to a degree. If the situation were reversed and Russian and/or others major political figures in other nations commented similarly on US elections, which are not without their flaws as we can talk about, I hope, there would be the strongest possible protest from the State Department and the White House. You know, statements by Clinto, for example that she has serious concerns about the elections on Sunday, presuming to speak on behalf of the Russian people, stating that Russian voters deserve, an I quote: “a full investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation.” end quote. This is somebody who is from the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. And like her commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, who is from Chicago and is a product of the Chicago political machine. They are hardly in a position to complain about electoral fraud, and manipulation, and ballot box stuffing. They are products of the political machine that all but invented the process. I’ve spoken with a fellow Chicago resident who had lived in the former Soviet Union and talked about the fact elections were held, where election days were holidays so that people were off work and could not only vote but could participate in the political process, including in the polling place, which is not a luxury accorded to Americans, though we hold ourselves up, of course, as being the model for democratic processes, including elections. She (Clinton) made this statement about the recently concluded parliamentary elections in Russia, in State Duma and stated, mentioning again, in her own words, “electoral fraud and manipulation.”

What are some of the other flaws in the US system? Can you tell us something about foreign observers? Why aren’t they allowed into the US?

The second question is particularly fascinating! The first: “Their name is legion”, to use the line from the Gospels. That is there are so many flaws in the American electoral system, not least of which of course is that next year several billion dollars are going to be spent by lobbyists and others to choose their candidates, buy their candidates into office, what is politely put an auction block. I’ll give you the best example I can think of. Today at work in Chicago most everyone were glued to television sets to learn which sentence was going to be passed down on former Governor Rod Blagojevich on 18 counts of corruption. He was sentenced to 14.5 years, as it turns out. We have to recall his major transgression was trying to sell the Senate seat, of at the time incoming US President Barack Obama. During the course of the initial trial, Blagojevich mentioned that he had had several phone calls with Rahm Emanuel – who is now the mayor of Chicago; at the time he was Chief of Staff of the White House – about just that, about selling, the Senate seat, or selling the right to appoint the successor to the incoming president of a country that President Obama in December of 2009 referred to as “the world’s sole military superpower.” But it’s tolerated in the US simply because the US is the US, what's referred to as “American exceptionalism,” so that even though we have an electoral system tainted by billions of dollars changing hands as almost all offices go to the highest bidder. As to foreign observers, the US will not tolerate any intrusion on its own sovereignty – but will interfering in the grossest fashion imaginable in other peoples’ internal political processes.

 Regarding NATO?

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has recently presumed again to lecture Russia, just as Hillary Clinton does, on how Russia should conduct its elections. Rasmussen is telling Russia, though he is in no formal position to do so, how to defend itself, saying for example that Russia should not follow up on the pledges and on some of the actual commitments made by President Medvedev to increase surveillance radar and other surveillance installations in North-East Russia and to reposition tactical missiles in both Kaliningrad Enclave near North-East Russia and so forth. But the statement by Rasmussen was particularly condescending and patronizing, at one point basically telling the Russian government they’d better take care of their own people first, or words to that effect, again just reeking of arrogance and contempt. This sort of talk one expects from a NATO chieftain and Rasmussen, though less abrasive than some of his predecessors, feels empowered evidently to tell major nations like Russia what they ought to and ought not to do in terms of defending the borders of their own country. I should add that the current US permanent representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder, made a statement two days ago where he said the US and NATO are forging ahead with the interceptor missile system in Europe, and I believe I am quoting him word for word: "whether Russia likes it or not.”

He said that?

That's correct. If anything, we are hearing more and more ambitious plans. For example, the Upper House of the Romanian Parliament, their Senate, yesterday ratified the agreement of the US to station 24 anti-missile -3 interceptors in Romania, which as we know is immediately across the Black Sea from Russia. This is in conjunction with the comparable deployment of missiles in Poland in addition to the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles that are already present in Poland; the radar missile defense facility that will be placed in Turkey. And there is a discussion now about maybe in the dozens, maybe in the scores of NATO nations’ warships being converted to the so-called Aegis combat system so that they could be equipped with either radar or in most instances missiles, Standard Missile-3s for what’s called the European Phased Adaptive Approach, a US-NATO missile system. So they are forging ahead at all fronts, at the same time the Secretary General of NATO is lecturing Russia on what it should or should not do in terms of self-defense. And the US Ambassador to NATO, who is a pretty influential person in his own right – he is a former senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, I am talking about Daalder of course – who could make such a curt and arrogant statement, as the one I just cited, you know: that the US and NATO are going ahead with the missile shield "whether Russia likes it or not.”

Hypersonic Missile: To Target Russia

28 November 2011, 18:23   Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

The first thing that is on everybody’s minds is President Medvedev’s statement regarding NATO. Why at this late date exactly, at this juncture?

In a rather alarming manner we’ve seen the recruitment, for the US missile system in Europe at large, through the mechanism of NATO, in the last couple of months where in addition to the countries where we know there are going to be US interceptor missiles stationed the extension of foreign based X-Band radar facility in Turkey but we’ve also seen the recruitment of nations like Spain, the Netherlands and others into what the While House and the Pentagon curiously refer to as the European Phased Adaptive Approach Missile System, one that is going to proceed in four phases, but the third and fourth phase, with the introduction of very advanced-stage, what are called Standard Missile-3 Land-Based Interceptors, that the understanding is that these can be employed not strictly for defensive purposes but to target all Russian strategic deterrent forces and capabilities rather in Europe.

Recently, the US and NATO conducted tests for their new hypersonic missile. Could you tell the listeners a little bit about that?

Earlier this month, the US DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).  And it’s actually an interdepartmental weapon system, its part of what’s called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, or sometimes simply Prompt Global Strike. Last year, for example, the Obama administration asked for somewhere in the neighbourhood of the third of a billion dollars for this year to develop this capacity. It’s meant to deliver conventional weapons attacks, or conventional attacks on any site on the planet within no more than 60 minutes. And what happened earlier this month was that the US army tested the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), which traveled an estimated 7,400 km/h, which is over six times the speed of sound. In August, an unsuccessful test of AHW-related component was to have traveled at 27,000 km/h, which is known as over MACH 20 – that is 20 times the speed of sound. To be hypersonic one has to exceed MACH 5, or five times the speed of sound. What happened the day before President Medvedev’s statement about moving mobile ISKANDER missiles into the Kaliningrad District, but also potentially into Belarus and into the Southern Krasnodar Region, which would be closer and closer to US missiles in Romania and to the NATO radar facility in Turkey, the day before the Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov mentioned that Russia’s new air-defense systems are capable of intercepting any kind of missiles, including US interceptor missiles but also he explicitly mentioned  hypersonic weapon.

He said that explicitly? Hypersonic?

Yes, he said it specifically in reference that had been conducted a couple of weeks earlier by the US.

You mentioned earlier this was a part of the Prompt Global Strike System? Is this a first-strike system?

I’ll read you a comment that was made a couple of years ago by the person who is now retired. It was Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, US military General Cartwright, who stated that the proclaimed intent of the Prompt Global Strike was to deliver a conventional missile or heavy bombers – you know, long-range bombers – anywhere in the face of the Earth within an hour. Marine General James Cartwright, who is now retired, stated: “At the high end, strikes could be delivered in 300 milliseconds,” which is a fraction of a second. There was a comment by another person, who is retired, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, William Lynn, who stated roughly the same things but a year and a half ago. He said: “The next air warfare priority for the Pentagon is developing a next-generation, deep-penetrating strike capability that can overcome air defenses,” meaning again that this first-strike capability or part of a general first-strike capability that would permit the US to strike fast, deep and undetected presumably into the interior of countries that have advanced air defense systems. I can only think of three countries that would match that description – Iran, to a lesser extent, and Russia and China, to a greater.

How would this all tie in with the Cyber Warfare Center that’s been active recently in Estonia?

Yes, in 2008, NATO set up one of what they call, what NATO calls a Center of Excellence, a Cyber Defense Centre in the capital of Estonia, in reaction to alleged cyber attacks, real or alleged. So that we have three components being integrated, one of them being the so-called Global Missile Shield. But, first of all, there is no real assurance that the missiles, in fact pack a non-explosive warhead. They are supposed to be what kinetic or hit-to-kill missiles but at any time that the US chooses I suspect put a strategic warhead on one of these missiles and when they are deployed in Poland or Romania no one would be the wiser. We know that the momentous statement by President Medvedev on Wednesday cited the fact that Russia was not consulted about anything. In his own words, the US rather blithely announces after the fact or rather that the President or Defense Minister of Russia have to read in western newspapers US plans to deploy, under NATO auspices, 48 Standard Missile-3 interceptors in Romania and Poland, 24 each, and, as he put it, it’s presented to us as an accomplished fact. With that lack of consultation, with that lack of openness, transparency, one could, with great justification, fear the ultimate purpose of US missiles in nations like Poland and Romania or ship-based versions of Standard Missile-3 that will be deployed in the Baltic Sea – and they may well find their way into the Black Sea.

Does the West Want Arms Race in Europe?

29 November 2011, 18:36   Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to

About a month ago, NATO tested first-strike capabilities of using mobile radar in Turkey. Why would a defensive system need to test offensive capabilities? We have the cyber warfare center. You said it also can be used as an offensive tool by the US. We have hypersonic missile tests and the Prompt Global Strike system. I think these are pretty good reasons for the Russian Federation to be worried, to put it mildly, as to the intentions of the West. Why would the West want to start an arms race in Europe? Why would this be profitable? Why not include Russia as part of the sectoral approach system? It’s probably a rhetorical question but can you touch upon it?

There is no rational answer to it, certainly not a persuasive from the point of view of the West. For example, as you mentioned, Russia is far from simply arbitrarily and firmly opposing the creation of a unilateral US interceptor missile system in Europe.  The entire western flank of Russia is affected by this of course– from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Russia went out of its way. Russian political leadership went out of its way to be accommodating to offer, for example, the Gabala radar site in Azerbaijan it maintains in conjunction with NATO. It offered this sectoral approach where Russia would cover part of affected area and NATO the other and so forth, the integration and communication. But we know that several things have occurred this week, and so far this month – the advanced hypersonic weapon test earlier this month, the statement by Sergei Serdyukov, the Defense Minister of Russia the day before Medvedev’s statement, stating that Russian Air Defense is now to be equipped to protect Russian nuclear strategic capability in the European part of the Russian Federation, but also that the US announced – and was soon followed by 14 NATO allies – that they are effectively pulling out of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, blaming Russia for it, of course, for it, because Russia suspended its activities with the CFE, as it’s known, in 2007 – but did so because the US and its NATO allies refused to ratify amendments to the treaty. The US has used the presence of a comparatively small contingent of Russian peace-keepers in Transdnester and, before Mikhail Saakashvili launched an assault against South Ossetia and began the 5-day war with Russia in August of 2008, the existence at that time of, again, a small contingent of Russian peace keepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, using that as an excuse for basically suspending, for not ratifying, amendments to the CFE Treaty. And we have, as you know, President Medvedev’s statement on Wednesday, the fact that Russia may be compelled to suspend its activities in or withdraw from the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This is a very momentous week in terms of security in Russia and the fear of not only a new arms race, a new missiles race but something perhaps even more ominous than that. What we are looking at is a brinksmanship, lawlessness – I don’t know what other words to use to describe it – very bold and threatening actions by the US and its NATO partners to move missiles up to Russia’s borders, in the case of Poland, which joins Kaliningrad, and perhaps Aegis-class warship equipped with Standard Missile-3 interceptors in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Russia and, of course, the 24 Standard Missile-3 land based missiles that are going to be placed in Romania, directly across the Black Sea from Russia. I believe that President Medvedev mentioned precisely that – on our borders and in waters bordering Russia and so forth. What we are seeing is an almost calculated provocation, as I would characterize it. That’s the best interpretation. The worst is that the US and NATO are building up the military capability of neutralizing Russia’s strategic deterrent capability in the west and the south of the country. And I suspect that, having a military budget of some $730 billion, which is constant dollars, World War II level the highest since 1945, I’m reminded of the old expression that the abuse of power inevitably results in the power to abuse. As long as the US has built itself into, in Obama’s terms, “the world’s sole military superpower,” it feels it’s going to operate with impunity.

Would you say it’s time for the world to be very concerned here?

It’s way past time to be very concerned. I don’t know if it occurred at this year’s General Assembly Session at the UN but I know that, in preceding years, Russia and China jointly went to the General Assembly and introduced resolutions, talking about yet another threat, which is the militarization of space by the US. This is the ultimate part of the so-called global missile shield. So there will be a space component to this in addition to land, air and sea-based interceptor missiles and components. So the world has sounded alarm, at least major nations have. But I would like to see both the Security Council and the General Assembly convene on emergency session, to be honest about it, to demand that this rampant militarization of world stop. Two years ago, The Financial Times talked about $123 billion arms package for Saudi Arabia and three of its Persian Gulf allies with the US. The Saudi component of that is estimated at $60-67 billion, which is a single largest bilateral military deal in human history. We’ve seen incomparable deals with countries like Canada, Australia, Japan. You don’t build up this kind of military capability, unless, at the very least, you are going to use it to blackmail somebody. We recall that on Wednesday president Medvedev statements were very tempered. He was mentioning certain contingency plans that would only be put into operation if the US didn’t eventually heed the plea by Russia to notify it of its missile deployment plans and not pose a threat, or a potential threat, to Russian strategic interests and so forth. This wasn’t a threat. This was rather stating that Russia would be compelled to introduce certain defensive measures if the US and NATO continued to turn a deaf ear to Russia’s offers of cooperation but also to the expression of its concern. One major Russian official – that may have been Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, I’m not sure – says the US claims to be defending its own territory by building up a missile defense system but that missile defense system is encroaching on Russian borders.

Iraq 2003/Iran 2011: Parallel Can't Be Missed

10 November 2011, 17:22    Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

You’ve read the IAEA report on Iran. Can you give us your quick overview?

Yes. It’s a very lengthy, involved, detailed, technical document. It actually has 65 different sections, 23 pages on the online edition. IAEA claimed to give an authoritative interpretation of the document. But there are certain points that stick out repeatedly on several occasions. For example, the report mentions that Iran may have been working on an alleged military component to its nuclear energy policy prior to 2003 – and I’m roughly paraphrasing the report – and may still be doing so. So, there are several qualifiers, the word ‘maybe’ being the chief one. Additionally, sources of information about the current situation with the enrichment of uranium, with the development of the industry as a whole and also with alleged military components like detonators and so forth, the report cites information provided by ten member states, but on several occasions by one member state. The member states are never identified. My supposition would be that the US is the first and the remaining nine are NATO allies and perhaps Israel.

Do you think that the internal US political situation has anything to do with the release of this report at this time?

It may well have everything to do with the release of the report at this time. There was an unsigned editorial in Global Times in China, which is a publication of the ruling party, the Communist Party of China, which suggests exactly: the economic crisis unparallel, one could argue, in the US and in Europe, is such that this would give rise to adventurous and even ‘catastrophic’, to use the word of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, ‘catastrophic’ actions in the Middle East, meaning strikes against Iran. In fact, that has been mentioned by several Russian diplomats, by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently, by Deputy Minister Gennady Gotilov, I believe today, where he suggests that one of the major purposes of the release and of the details and the media representation of it in the west is to prepare the ground for, in his own words, ‘change of the regime in Iran.’ So, there is a transparent political motive. Other, much more frightening statement, of course, is that of President of Israel Shimon Peres over the past weekend that the military option is quickly overriding diplomatic ones in dealing with Iran over its nuclear program.

It seems pretty obvious, I think, to a lot of people that rhetoric is being built up in order to launch an invasion. A lot of people believe this would really destabilize the entire Middle East even further. What do you think?

It’s an interesting use of the word ‘rhetoric’. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has recently sounded the alarm about what he termed ‘militarist rhetoric' in the Middle East and warned about potentially catastrophic consequences as a result of that. Yes, you are correct. A script that would have been rejected by even a third-rate Hollywood studio about an alleged assassination plot comes within weeks of the release of the IAEA report on Iran’s civilian nuclear power plant program. So, all the pieces seem to be falling into place. And the statement here, in Chicago, on November 9 by the Russian Foreign Ministry that the release of the report and the political interpretation placed on the IAEA report is, not in my own words, frighteningly reminiscent of what was does in the UN Security Council in the early 2003, when the US made a similar claim about Iraq at that time developing weapons of mass destruction. A parallel could hardly be missed.

What is the view by the men in the street in the US? Are they buying it this time?

I’m not in a position to comment. I haven’t read polls, which I don’t think have been conducted. There is healthy skepticism among the general population, even in relation to the recently concluded war in Libya, where polls – I’m sure your listeners are familiar with them –showed the majority of Americans not supporting the military action. So, military strikes against Iran – one could assume – would meet with the similar response amongst the general population in the US. However, we have to keep in mind how fairly disenfranchised the average American, including myself, is in the political process.

What I see as a parallel, also that nobody is talking about, with Iraq and Iran was that Iran is, I think, attempting and trying to cooperate actively with the IAEA. But the IAEA seems not to want to listen to them and come to their own conclusion. Do you think it is a fair assessment?

That is exactly what’s happening – and again, in the words of a Russian diplomat within the last day or two – that the content of the report has been ‘twisted’ and placed in the service of political agenda. Political agenda, as he alluded to earlier, may very well have to do with domestic policies in the US, both related to the presidential election of next year and with congressional and senatorial elections. But also, because of the economic crisis, American people… Let me just share one anecdote with you very quickly. I am a native of Johnston, Iowa. The lead story in the local newspaper, the Johnston Vindicator, says that Johnston currently has the highest poverty rate in the US – 49.1%. There are 250 people applying for every job, for the most part a minimum-wage part-time job. And when you have almost half of the total city living in poverty, then self-serving and unprincipled politicians are going to point people’s animosity and hostility elsewhere they are going to do it overseas. And Iran appears to be the lightning rod that is slated to receive that animosity. Johnston is particularly concerned– as I know a lot of people around the world are –about the prospect of military strikes against Iran. I needn’t tell anyone what the consequences would be. This will involve a general conflagration in the area and perhaps even globally. Whereas in the past attacks against nuclear reactors in other countries, such as that in Iraq in 1983 and recently by Israel in Syria against an alleged nuclear reactor, have been contained or limited in their scope, a massive series of strikes against the Bushehr power plant in Iran would be nothing of that sort. It’s be something of an entirely differ magnitude. And the fact that the Russian foreign minister, two deputy foreign ministers, the Foreign Ministry collectively and so forth have issued some of statements in past few days suggesting this is a much graver situation then what we have faced over the last ten years of repeated speculation about or even threats of military strikes against Iran.

Gaddafi Assassination: A Brutal Gratuitous Slaying

22 October 2011, 11:42   Download audio file

Interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and the contributing writer to

How are you today, Mr. Rozoff?

Rather distressed by the news of this morning or yesterday morning, in your case.

Ok, what is your first impression?

It was a brutal gratuitous slaying of an almost 70-year-old man. You know, killed after being captured. And if, you know, the intent of 216 days of NATO bombing was to kill him in the first place which is you know clearly the case, the multiple bombings of his compound  in Tripoli, you know the one, which killed his son and two grandchildren, you know it is clearly targeting for killing and I suppose NATO can now claim success. It has got what it wanted.

President Barack Obama said that there is going to be pulling out of Libya very soon so in your mind does that mean the objective has been met?

Yes, it has entirely. Regime change, take over the Africa largest oil reserves, the incorporation of Libya which hitherto had been the only Northern African country that was not incorporated into NATO’s so called Mediterranean dialogue is now according to Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen been slated for the military partnership with the North Atlantic Alliance, so in every sense their objective has been accomplished. It certainly nothing that it’s going to benefit the Libyan people.

You don’t see this as being  justice for the oppressed Libyan people? I mean there are people saying that Gaddafi was a terrible guy. He killed thousands so he deserved to die.

You know, there is so much just, what term do I want to use? Low taste, gratuitous, reveling in the murder of this man, who was born 70 years ago in the very city he was murdered in on the 216th day of NATO bombing of his country. He was born under Italian fascists’ occupation and he died under NATO occupation. I think, you know, the parallel there can’t be missed, including the fact that Italy supplied some of the warplanes that have devastated his country, since the middle of March, since March 19th . If he was the monster they’ve portrayed him as being and you know I invite your listeners to go to the NATO website and see some of the crude caricatures they’ve had over the last few days of Gaddafi, and, you know, wall graffiti and so forth, portraying him in a demeaning and belittling way, to further dehumanize him preparatory to murdering him.

Alright, I saw some television coverage of his naked body being thrown around like a piece of meat, I am sorry for the expression.

Yes, after they brought him to Misrata. You know, this sickening, barbaric and worse than barbaric treatment and, you know, it’s a long line of this going on, this is true with Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. You know that a leader of the country that doesn’t cow-tow entirely. And I am not putting all these people in the same basket, it’s not in my capacity. Let’s rephrase that. Any leader whose time has come according to the United States and NATO can expect death. You know, Hussein was hanged, Gaddafi was captured. You know, whereas he was considered to be, he was only nominally so, but he was considered to be the head of the state and even the head of the military. In the bombing of his private residences, in the name of, under the guise of being command and control centers suggests that he was considered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to be in charge of the Libyan Military so when he was captured on that Thursday, his treatment was governed by the Geneva Conventions, but instead he was shot through the head and murdered. This is the new regime that is being implanted in Libya and for all West’s talk of the rule of Law and humanitarian concerns and so forth this is a graphic image just like the death of Slobodan Milosevic in a veritable dungeon in the Netherlands because he was denied proper medical treatment in Russia and the grotesque hanging of Saddam Hussein. You know, this is the image of a new world order, a world order and all its transparent barbarism.

What do you mean he was denied medical treatment in Russia?

Russia offered to make a deal with the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to bring Slobodan Milosevic to Moscow for medical treatment but he was denied that and he died shortly thereafter. Even more foul play but the message is very clear.

Do you see a pattern, I am sorry to interrupt you there. Do you see a pattern here, I am sure you do, between Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and now Gaddafi? I mean, we have countries, for example, Hussein and Gaddafi, they pretty much stopped their weapons’ programs. They cooperated with the CIA, in this case from what I’ve heard, and it’s pretty much a given, Gaddafi was assisting the war on terror fight by the United States by allowing rendition flights to Libya. He stopped his weapons programs. Do you see a pattern here?

Yes, that’s a very clear pattern. That’s the United States and NATO Alliance use somebody whatever purpose they want to and then get rid of them and kill them afterwards. You know, Slobodan Milosevic had political risk to himself inside, you know, at that time the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but played a role in negotiating  an end to the armed hostilities in Bosnia and in gratitude for which his country was bombed for 78 days in 1999 by the United States and its NATO allies and subsequently he was left to die in prison.

He had a deal with the CIA, I think, it came out, and I think that it’s pretty much a part of the public record that he believed that he was going to be protected.

I don’t know the details about that but at the end of the day what we see there is a lot of corpses and we see corpses of heads of state. You know, we have to recall that again even though he was a titular a nominal head of state, Muammar Gaddafi was the longest reigning leader in the world. He is the one personal link since Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba, retired, he was the last link between the post-World War II, national liberation struggles and the emergence of new nations, and he is also the last link between the cold war era and the post-cold war era that is issued in NATO an International Military strike forth that can topple governments. You know, NATO boasts on its website as of today of flying over 26,000 air missions over a country of 6 million people well over 9,000 of those combat sorties. So this monster has been unleashed over the last 20 years and Libya will not be the last country. That you can be assured of.

What do you think is going to happen next?

I don’t know if Libya is able to be put back together again. The Western powers incited regional and tribal differences in order to topple the former Gaddafi government and believing you can put that Genie back in the bottle along with the commander of the National Transitional Council, who is somebody the United States captured and incarcerated in Guantanamo. Former fighter in Afghanistan and in so called Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, you have Al Qaeda elements, tribal separatists – they’ve created real Pandemonium here and now they claim that they want to stabilize Libya. I don’t see it happening. At the end of the day, the so called no-flight zone and Humanitarian intervention, NATO has transparently waged a  war on the government on behalf of insurgents, period. This was clearly the intent from the beginning and now, you know, it’s successful.

NATO Planning First-Strike Again

19 October 2011, 16:02  Download audio file   No transcript

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global


US Advances Reagan’s Star War Plans for Global NATO and Global Military Domination

9 September 2011, 13:28   Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global They tried to shut you down over the weekend. Can you tell us what happened? Yes, thank you for asking.

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

They tried to shut you down over the weekend. Can you tell us what happened?

Yes, thank you for asking. The Stop NATO website was shut down by its host WordPress on Friday without any plausible explanation, just with a vague statement about “concern over some content on your site.” The site is a reputable news one and it took 24 hours and a good deal of pressure from sources around the world before WordPress relented and allowed the site to be reactivated. They didn’t close it down, it just prevented me from posting any new material. Of course, by the nature of these things it’s hard to determine whether it was a conscious political decision, but one has to allow this possibility. Anyway, we are back online for the time being and thank you for asking.

Turkey has recently agreed formally to host NATO anti-ballistic missile elements on its territory.

What I understand, the agreement of Turkey that they are going to station what’s called Forward-Based X-Band Transportable Missile Radar of the sort that installed in Israel three years ago by the US, in the Negev Desert, which has by the way a range of 4,300 km (2,500 ml) but if aimed in the proper direction could take in the entirety of Western Russia and a good deal of Southern Russia. And it’s an equivalent of what is to be based in Turkey, aimed exclusively against Iran but I think only the credulous would believe that. This has to be seen, of course, following the decision reached at the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal, last November to incorporate all NATO nations and US-NATO Missile Defense Agency plans for a global NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has recently clarified we are not talking about regional or even European continent-wide interceptor missile systems but one that is international in scope. And bringing it into Turkey – there’s incidentally been discussions going back ten or more years from respective heads of Missile Defense Agency of the US Defense Department about situating interceptor missile facilities not only in Turkey, but also in nations like Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan. So, there are plans to extend US-dominated interceptor missile system from Europe to east and south, that is into the Middle East and presumably into the South Caucasus and all the way to Central Asia.

Of those countries that you’ve mentioned, which are in the process of soon signing formal agreements with NATO that you know of?

Every single one of them has an advanced partnership program with NATO, except for Turkey, which is, of course, a member. But I think another important consideration is that Romanian President Traian Basescu said last week that the US in Romania are very soon signing an agreement for the stationing of 20 Standard Missile-3 interceptor missiles in Romania, which is part of what the Obama Administration terms Phased Adaptive Approach, there are actually four phases of the SM-3, and Lockheed Martin is establishing a testing facility for what will be the most advanced, which is SM-3 block to go online in 2020. There will be an intermediate to go online in 2015 but they will be based, estimates are 24 each, in Romania and Poland. And we have to recall that last year the US moved the first Patriot Advanced Capability-3, an advanced version of Patriot interceptor missile, into the Polish city of Morag, which is only some 35 miles away from the Russian border.

I would like to add that accompanying the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles in Poland are a hundred or more US servicemen, which are the first foreign troops to be stationed on Polish soil since the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, and the Forward-Based X-Band Radar of the sort they set up in Israel includes something in the neighborhood of a hundred US troops, which are the first foreign troops stationed in Israel for a long period of its history and the situation with Romanian SM-3, where a hundred US troops will also be stationed – we are seeing export of US military personnel and equipment to the east and to the south. I think it’s noteworthy that the announcement by the new State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who from 2003 to 2008 was US permanent representative to NATO. This is the person who announced that Turkey is going to host US-NATO interceptor missile radar facilities.

NATO is making overtures to India and India looks like they are considering working with them as well.

The actual announcement was made by another very interesting fellow, the current US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, who incidentally 5 years ago co-authored a piece in Foreign Affairs, the monthly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), with the intriguing title of Global NATO, the opening  sentence of which states that NATO has gone global and openly advocated at that point that NATO incorporate as full members, not simply as partners, what he deemed to be the world’s democracies, amongst which was India. We are talking about people pursuing a long-term agenda. What the US is reactivating now with the inclusion of NATO is realization of Reagan’s so-called “Star Wars” plan, that is the one that allowed the US and its allies to be impenetrable to any retaliation or any capability of retaliating by other countries that might be subjected to attacks by the US and its allies.

We have to recollect that the Head of State of the US. Currently President Barack Obama, ironically, paradoxically, distressingly on the occasion of delivering his Nobel Peace Prize speech openly boasted that the US was “the world’s sole military superpower.” And I think to maintain that status in the face of a weakening US economy, with the rise of the BRICS nations and so forth, with trends that suggest that the US is under the grime internationally that Washington holds its military supremacy and that the country has the ability to retaliate, particularly in strategic terms. And when we are talking about the latest proposed model of the SM-3 we are talking about one that could threaten Russia as well as China. I could argue that North Korea and Iran are a pretext for developing a global Star Wars system that would place both Russia and China within a circle of US and allied interceptor missile system.

NATO missile elements in India would protect or annul what threat for NATO?

There is no threat to NATO at all in my estimate, so that’s a fictitious claim. What in fact you are seeing is consolidation of what observers have warned about for a decade – the emergence of an Asia-Pacific NATO.

Libya: Another Country for NATO

31 August 2011, 18:23   Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

Can you shed a little light on the situation in Libya, in particular with NATO?

As you know, I’m in Chicago, not in Tripoli, so I’m observing events from afar. Yet there is an old roman expression which says “The game is best viewed by the spectator.” So, what I have to say I think is trying to situate developments in Libya, whatever they are on the ground, within both original and even international context. And, within that network, we know today that the African Union has refused recognition to the so-called Transitional National Council, comprised of what by all accounts is a fairly motley, heterogeneous grouping of anti-government forces in Libya, aided and abetted by major NATO powers like France, Britain, the US and Italy and also by Persian Gulf monarchies like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. So, the fact that the continent, on which Libya, has located has collectively refused recognition to the new rebel regime I think is significant, as is the fact that Russian Foreign Ministry has voiced its concerns and its opposition to any plans that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may entertain for either placing troops on the ground in Libya, ostensively under the guise of peacekeeping or stabilization force, but also I think more prominently voiced some concern about the prospect of NATO military facilities and the opposed Gaddafi.

Would you characterize everything that you heard and seen as a true revolution of the people or is it some sort of a western-backed insurgency in your opinion?

I think, by universal accord, those people are celebrating the apparent overthrow of the government in Libya as a triumph of a people’s power democracy or however they choose to phrase it. What is unquestionable is in fact that, whatever the nature of the rebel coalition is, it would never succeed in consolidating support outside of Libya, much less moving into the capital, if it had not been for over 20,000 NATO air missions since March 31 and almost 8,000 combat air sorties in the same period of time. Additionally, more and more information is emanating from sources in Britain, newspapers in Britain  and elsewhere that special operations troops, special forces from several major NATO countries, including I believe the CIA that is acting on the streets of Tripoli.

Are they hunting Gaddafi or providing air support for the rebels?

There is no question about that. The attempt, or rather the intent of the United Nations Resolution 1973 adopted in March to “use all means necessary to protect Libyan civilians” was being extended and in essence violated by France, Britain, Italy, the US, Canada and other major NATO nations to wage what can only be characterized as a war against the incumbent government in Libya and this includes, according to the NATO’s own statistics, over 2,000 air missions flown over Libya since March 31, of which almost 8,000 are combat sorties. And what is documented even in western news sources, western newspapers for example, is that as recently as today Muammar Gaddafi’s hometown has been attacked by NATO warplanes and earlier, a couple of days ago, the major governmental compound in Tripoli was attacked by as many as 64 missiles. These attacks are coordinated with the military activities of rebel groupings, so that NATO basically bombs them into areas, including the capital and including other cities in Libya. So, the coordination of NATO’s aerial and naval blockade of Libya with the rebel forces is unquestionably an act of participation on behalf of one of the belligerent forces against the other – the government of Libya. And in that sense it’s a perfect parallel to what happened in Yugoslavia in 1999, where NATO bombed the country mercilessly for 78 days in coordination and in conjunction with the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army.

You mentioned that some people from Global are in Libya, in Tripoli, and they are trapped in a hotel there.

Actually, the international press corps is there. But there are particular concerns about Canadian-based journalist Mahdi Nazemroaya and also French journalist Thierry Meyssan, who have voiced concerns about their well-being. Their position is very well-known as not parroting the official line of the western countries and that information I’m sure has been passed on by establishment western journalists within the hotel to rebel forces in Tripoli. And there is concern by the two journalists I’ve mentioned that their lives may be in danger.

What do you see as NATO’s role in Libya after Gaddafi is gone?

Time will tell. But assuming that this is a scenario, we have a lot to go on. I mean we have the fact that the Turkish Foreign Minister announced yesterday that NATO’s role will continue in Libya after the installation of the rebel government, the so-called Transitional National Council. And similar soundings have emanated from major figures and NATO countries that suggest that, far from NATO’s role ending, it may in a certain sense just be beginning. And that parallels almost identically what happened in Yugoslavia in 1999 and what has happened in Afghanistan in the past decade, where bombs itself into a country and sets up military bases and doesn’t leave. The US still has Camp Bondsteel in the current Serbian province of Kosovo, which is a large, expensive base, by some accounts the largest overseas military base built by the US since the war in Vietnam. And that remains there over 20 years after the end of the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Similarly, the US has upgraded pretty substantially airbases in Afghanistan, including those near Central Asia and close to the Iranian border, and there is no indication they are ever going to abandon them, as they are not going to abandon military bases in Iraq and other places. It’s a lot easier to bring NATO into one’s country or have them coming than to get them out.

US Afghan strategy: senseless and merciless

22 July 2011, 15:04   Download audio fle

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global in Canada.

I want to ask you some questions about the transfer of command in Afghanistan from General Petraeusto General Allen. Do you see any definitive change in the situation in the country in the near future?

No, I don’t. This is the latest in the series of rotations of the top military commanders simultaneously, of course, throughout the US’s so-called Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Two years ago, Gen. David McKinnon was ousted and replaced by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who in turn was kicked out in favour of Gen. David Petraeus. And now we have a Marine General John Allen stepping in. Throughout that succession series of top commanders, I think, have gone from bad to worse, and, with recent events in Afghanistan, there is no reason to believe anything is going to be subsequently changed and certainly not improved. We do know that each success of commanders intensified the brutality and intensity of military actions, that Petraeus most notably had increased the so-called night raids, special forces operations, which, as often as not, resulted in deaths of Afghan civilians but also in intensification of air raid. We know, for example, that, as of the end of last month, the first half of this year, almost 15,000 Afghan civilians were killed, which is the highest in the six-month period in the war and certainly higher than it was a year ago during the same period. There is also a recent report that stated that in the last two years that 250,000 – a record – of Afghan civilians have been forced to flee their towns and villages because of the intense fighting. So, if there is any index, there is no way of portraying the situation in Afghanistan as having become any better.

Why is the US in Afghanistan? Did I ask you this question?

I’ll give you my personal estimate and I think it’s the one that became apparent with the initial thrust into Afghanistan almost ten years ago, which occurred less than three months after the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the summer of 2001. My supposition is going to be – not withstanding the hunt for Osama bin Laden and whatever else was presented as the casus belli for the invasion of Afghanistan and its continuation for ten years – that, in essence, the US and its Western allies wanted to plant itself firmly at the point of confluence where Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan and other nations might be able to cooperate in building a multipolar alternative to the US-dominated unipolar world and being in Afghanistan and the environs. We have to keep in mind that the US and its NATO allies, their military facilities, are still based in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the latest of now – Pakistan, where the US has been told to leave the base, from which it was waging drone missile attacks, which have killed 2,500 or so people in Pakistan, last year was the highest with almost a thousand people killed. And they are proceeding that there is something like 714 people killed in Pakistan by US drone missile attacks and out of those 714 five are either al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters.


Five. And let’s assume, several hundred, if not a thousand or more civilians have been killed in the drone attacks, which are not, of course, being spread with increased intensity not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan and, earlier, in Iraq, but in Yemen, most recently in Somalia and, of course, with the deployment of US Predator drones in Libya, in that country. So we now have six countries, in which the US is waging drone warfare. And I think we will see the intensification of that mode of warfare under Gen. Allen as he assumes the command of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Even now the Pentagon is not responsible for those attacks. The Central Intelligence Agency is – and guess who is taking over that agency in September?


Yes. So, there will be continuity on that end that the top West military commander in Afghanistan is now in charge of the US government agency that is waging the drone attacks. So I think one will be justified in expecting an escalation of drone attacks inside Pakistan. The carnage inside Afghanistan is keeping pace with the killings by drone missile attacks, Hellfire missiles inside Pakistan.

How would you characterize the entire campaign by NATO and the US in Afghanistan? As a complete failure, or were there any gains?

There was an article recently by the US Department of Defense, Pentagon’s press agency, American Force’s press service that just happened to mention in passing that Shindand Air Base in the Herat Province has tripled in size recently to become the second largest military air base in Afghanistan next to that of Bagram. Last year, the US and its NATO allies stepped up the extension of air bases in Afghanistan – I mean in Kandhar, in Mazar a Sharif, in Jalalabad in addition to Bagram and Shindand – they are going to have air bases that control the entire region, a good deal of the Greater Middle East, if you will, in addition to continuing troop transit. They’ve also set up the northern distribution network that way. It’s an amazing access of air, ground, rail and truck transportation in the Northern Afghanistan, which now includes 13-15 former Soviet Republics, all except Moldova and Ukraine currently. Men and material are being moved in and out, and this is an amazing net work, when you look at it, including just recently the first air flight from the US over the North Pole and then over Kazakhstan into Afghanistan. So, in terms of building up a military network around the world – and we also have to remember there are troops from over 50 countries serving under NATO in Afghanistan, which is the largest amount of countries offering troops for one military commandment of one nation in world history. We also have to recall that Afghanistan has become a training ground, if you will, to place US-NATO allies and partners in real life combat situations, to integrate the militaries of at least 50 countries under, basically, US command, using English as their common language. I’m arguing that Afghanistan was a laboratory for integrating the militaries of these various countries.

NATO and the Militarization of the Arctic

Download audio file  

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global

Canada has announced that they will be conducting large-scale exercises in the Arctic. NATO also announced claims on the Arctic. What can you say about the militarization of the Arctic?

It’s something that has been under way, rather in earnest, for the last four years. What I think is most noteworthy is that Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay, while visiting his nation’s troops in Afghanistan last week, accompanied by the top military commander of Canada, Walter Natynczyk, who’s by the way being voted for a top NATO post – at least Canada is promoting that – mentioned this year ‘s now annual “Canadian sovereignty exercises” in the Arctic Ocean codenamed Operation Nanook that this year’s will be the largest to date, with at least a thousand Canadian military personnel participating. Last year’s Operation Nanook was the largest to date at that time, which included 900 Canadian troops. But I think what’s even more revealing than the size of the Canadian contention was that for the first time ever – and these exercises began in 2007 and were referred to as “Canadian sovereignty exercises” – they occurred directly in response to Russia renewing territorial claims on the Arctic Ocean, particularly using the Lomonosov and the Mendeleev Ridges to sustain their claim.

Do you know what the current status of the claimed zone of the Lomonosov Ridge is?

They have to be adjudicated in the United Nations. These were, in some sense, all but abandoned in waning days of the former Soviet Union by the Mikhail Gorbachev Administration. But Russia, over the last six or so years, has expressed renewed interest in the arctic for a number of reasons. There was a US geological survey perhaps two or three years ago that suggested that as much as 30% of hitherto undiscovered gas and 13% of oil resources exist in the Arctic Ocean. So, there are natural resources that are involved. Of course, now, with the melting of the Polar Ice Cap and the opening of much fabled Northwest Passage north of Canada, which connects the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans that would allow nations – China as one – to circumvent the Panama Canal or even longer journeys for commercial shipping and for the shipping of natural resources, the Arctic is taking on increasing not only economic, but, one can argue, geostrategic importance at the moment. But Russia is simply pursuing, as any nation could and should, I suppose, its national, economic and other interests of the Arctic. But, as a response, Canada started holding regular military exercises in the Arctic – the Operation Nanook maneuvers. And last year, as I was going to mention, for the first time ever the exercises included the participation of militaries from other countries, and those two countries were the United States and Denmark. The United States and Denmark along with the fifth claimant to the Arctic territory, Norway, are, of course, members of the North Atlantic treaty Organization. Russia alone of arctic claimants is not. And it’s ironic or revealing, as you will, that Denmark and the US are the only two countries that have direct territorial disputes with Canada: in the case of the US – with the Beaufort Sea, which is claimed simultaneously through the US’s State of Alaska and Canada’s Yukon Territory; and, on the other end – the Eastern and something called Hans Island, which is claimed by both Denmark through its Greenland possession and by Canada. So that, although the only real disputes that exist, are between the US and Canada, and Denmark and Canada, nevertheless, these three countries, three NATO members, engaged in common military exercises last August – Operation Nanook 2010 – with the clear indication that NATO countries are closing ranks against the only non-NATO claimant, which, of course, is Russia.

Are you saying that NATO has an interest in the Arctic?

Yes, most surely. And it’s acknowledged it. In January 2009, in the last days of the George Bush Administration, the White House issued a Presidential National Security Directive, Directive 66, in relation to the Arctic. And it claimed amongst other things that not only does the US contend with Canada for the part of the Beaufort Sea, but the US maintains the Northwest Passage as international waters, whereas Canada claims that it’s entirely its own. And the National Security Directive #66 included amongst other things that the US warships and warplanes would have free passage through that area. And within, I believe, about couple of weeks after that, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization held an unprecedented summit in Iceland something to the effect of security prospects in the High North, at which point NATO openly acknowledged having strategic interests in the Arctic region. This meeting was top-level. It was attended not only by the Secretary General of NATO, but by the Alliance’s two top military commanders, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, who, as you know, was an American commander at all times, but also Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, which is based in Norfolk, Virginia, as well as the head of the NATO military Committee. I mean, they weren’t talking about the weather. It was clear that NATO has charted out the Arctic as yet another area. And this is quite in line with the new NATO strategic concept, which was adopted at Lisbon Summit of the military block last November that highlighted in particular so-called energy security issues, that NATO has a self-appointed role, or mission, to protect energy security in the Caspian Sea, in the Gulf of Guinea of West Africa and indeed everywhere in the world – but certainly not in the Arctic.

For whom?

For the interests, I presume, of the leading NATO member states – the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Italy and so forth – as against the rest of the world.

NATO Ambition is Global Domination

Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to the web site Global

My first question regards Russia, and NATO, and the integrated ABM shield that Russia has been, for want of a better word, pushing for. Implementing a sectoral defence architecture is what Russia was looking for. What are the chances of this happening, in your opinion?

By all indications after the meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Sochi, there are few opportunities or prospects of this occurring in terms of – using your wording – an integrated ABM system. No. NATO, with the US constantly barking orders at it, one assumes, is adamantly opposed to a sectoral approach that would permit the integration of Russian interceptor missile, radar and other operations with those of NATO. NATO insists on going it alone, if you will. And, as always, when it makes overtures to Russia, bringing Moscow in as a junior partner. We have to recall that at the Lisbon Summit of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization last November the US missile system, what is now called the Phased Adaptive Approach, initiated by the Obama Administration almost two years ago has been endorsed heartily, that is unanimously, by NATO. So, what we are talking about is a continuation of the US interceptor missile system in Europe, throughout Europe, covering the entire continent, excluding perhaps Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The overtures have been made for the last decade to try to enlist Ukraine as part of the NATO project. And those efforts are still not dead, if they haven’t born fruit to date. First of all, I think, at the root of this issue is what the true intention of the so-called Aegis Ashore, or Phased Adaptive Approach – Obama Administration and former Secretary of Defence Robert Gates’ project, which is a four-phased programme to bring Standard Missile-3 interceptors, which to date have been ship-based and to place them on land. The reports are, as the third and the fourth phases arrive in the upcoming years, that as many as 20 Standard Missile-3 advanced types will be placed each in Poland and Romania – and that’s in addition to the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 theatre interceptor missiles that are already placed in Poland. And then, of course, the ship-based versions on Aegis class cruisers and destroyers will be deployed as Washington sees fit – in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea. What we’re seeing is an almost impenetrable missile shield being erected along the entire western flank of Russia. You know, Russia is not allowed to be an integral part of that system and with projected or anticipated more sophisticated versions of the Standard Missile-3 that are able to intercept both intermediate and perhaps even long-ranged rockets, in the words of several Russian officials, civilian and military, this potentially threatens Russia’s strategic interests. So, you mean, is there any hope that they have been wrangling over this for a long time? The fact that Dmitry Medvedev became the first Russian or Soviet head of state ever to attend a NATO summit, as he did in Lisbon last November, while NATO was formally endorsing a continent-wide that some people refer to as “Son of Star Wars”. Perhaps, somebody in the Kremlin at that time had hopes that NATO would listen to reason. But I think the evidence of the Sochi NATO-Russia Council meeting suggests that NATO is not budging, it is not prepared to compromise.

Some Russian experts are saying that there was more progress made in Sochi. You see the opposite?

I’m just quoting Russian officials, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov both on the issue of Libya, the war against Libya, as well as the interceptor missile defence system, which is still fantastically described by the US and by NATO, by NATO Secretary GeneralAnders Fogh Rasmussen as being aimed at some 23 countries, I believe, some astronomical number of nations that are supposedly developing ballistic missiles. But nations that are usually identified are, of course, Iran, Syria – interestingly enough, given the current situation in that country – and others. I cannot, for the life of me, understand in terms of trajectory or anything else why 20 advanced Standard Missile-3 interceptors are to be placed in Poland to intercept missiles from Iran. It’s nonsensical as the George W. Bush version – putting ground-base midcourse missiles there.

Backing up a little bit: some experts say that NATO should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. NATO was designed, in fact, to contain the USSR and continues to operate in such a manner. What do you think about that statement? As far as the ABM shield goes, I agree with you about trajectory and the location – I mean that there could be no other reason for it rather than to contain Russian missiles.

You know, the Patriot Advanced Capability Missiles were placed in Poland, in the city of Morag 60 km from the Russian territory, to believe against whom else these missiles have been deployed, with accompanying US military personnel who are manning them. You now have the first permanent deployment of foreign troops in Poland since the breakup of the Warsaw Pact 20 years ago. Should NATO be disbanded? It should never have been formed, that having been done in 1949, most assuredly it should have been a precondition, as a matter of fact, for the former Soviet government of President Gorbachev that, while discussing the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and so forth, a quid pro quo reciprocity should have been demanded that NATO should have been disbanded. The fact that instead, within one decade, from 1991 to 2009, it increased its membership by 75%, going from 16 countries to 28 countries, all 12 new countries in Eastern Europe, of course, from the Baltic to the Adriatic Seas. And every one of them either former members of the Warsaw Pact, Albania for a short while – or former republics of Yugoslavia – is a clear indication NATO expansion eastward is meant not only to contain Russia, I would argue it’s meant to confront Russia.


Last Update: 08/20/2018 15:10 +0300


Site 1JAR2 Blog Button


JAR2 Biz


 Link to JAR2 YouTube Account  Link to JAR2 Blogger Account  Link to JAR2 Live Journal Account  Link to JAR2 Word Press Account    Link to JAR2 Sonation and Support Page


  Please help keep us going and make a donation Thanks to all supporters!

PayPal, Yandex, Qiwi, Сбербанк Sberbank Visa 4276 3800 4543 8756

Copyright JAR2 2003-2017 All Rights Reserved

Publishing Banned Truth Since June 06, 2003