The Truth About NATO
The US/NATO/EU is Based on the 4th Reich
Their Goal is the Eastablishment of the ZIONIST NWO
STOP US/NATO THE WORLD WANTS PEACE!!
In 2013, before the US mired down the Russian Federation with their destruction of Ukraine which is an attack by proxy on Russia. There was a wonderful worldwide media outlet called the Voice of Russia which was destroyed from the indside by Russian 5th columists which led to its liquidation. I worked day and night to stop the invasion of Syria that we are seeing today. My articles and interviews are still topical. I was prevented from investigating the fact that ISIS/IS/IL is a CIA/Mossad/NATO secret army which is destabilizing the region and in fact winning territory for Israel. Here is some of that work:
31 May, 23:28
US/NATO Missiles 5 Minutes from Moscow?
Washington and all of the organizations and individuals responsible for the February 22 coup d'état in Kiev may be patting each other on the back, getting out the cigars and congratulating themselves on a job well done but their victory is one which has no meaning in the long term and will once again show to the world, if it has not already, the completely myopic vision of the US foreign policy establishment, the complete and total disregard for international law and the lives of the world's peoples and the complete hypocrisy with which they operate.
In the long run the short lived victory will have the opposite effect than that which the US believes it has achieved and even the US/NATO Prompt Global Strike goal of placing nuclear missiles within a ten minute flight time of Moscow, will in the end be a complete failure.
US/NATO and Prompt Global Strike
The single most significant reason behind the fact that politicians, analysts, specialists, journalists, diplomats and any other individual interested in or attempting to follow and make sense of the events in Ukraine are all having a hard time understanding the situation (other than the complete Orwellian-Goebbels-Ministry of Truth turning night into day media operation) is that the entire US/NATO/EU Ukraine Operation has at its core a purely strategic military interest. This overriding military objective is the neutralization of Russia's nuclear deterrence capabilities, this includes rendering ineffective all elements of the Russia's nuclear Triad and the ability to launch a first strike directly on Moscow, with Moscow being unable to defend itself or launch its retaliatory strike. The "secret" military objective is behind the entire destabilization effort in Ukraine, just as the military objectives were at the core of the destruction of country after country in the Middle East. Therefore all secondary events subordinated to this core objective may not seem to make sense to the observer who may only see hypocrisy, double standards and even schizophrenic-like behavior coming from the West and from those orchestrating seemingly unrelated events to coalesce into conditions allowing for the attainment of their objective.
It does not take the specialized training and acumen of an intelligence analyst or military strategist to figure out the obvious. With the US Military Doctrine now one with the idea of "preventive first strike" at its core (formulated to officially grant legitimacy to the illegal strategy of aggressive war) which means destroying a perceived enemy threat before it has a chance to carry out any possible attack, the reason for US/NATO expansion and the placing of first nuclear strike capable missiles and supporting infrastructure around Russia and on its borders is clear.
Again aggressive war is a Crime Against Peace and Crime Against Humanity but by clever wording and by claiming national defense or defense of "US interests" or even "NATO partners" such manipulation, while not changing international law or the Geneva Conventions allows the US/NATO to be able to attack any opponent without fear of retribution.
The real purpose of the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) system, which officially foresees US/NATO of being able to launch and deliver ballistic missiles to any point on the planet under an hour, is carefully obfuscated and hidden by its proponents and designers. The purpose of PGS, AEGIS and all of the elements which make up the system is to allow the US, with NATO as a subordinate, to launch a nuclear first strike. The PGS system, in addition to the nuclear Triad also envisages a space launched kinetic weapon which would cause impact damage similar to meteor strikes.
What we have in effect, after the end of the Cold War, is an out of control US/NATO military industrial complex which has continued to grow at an alarming rate and has continued to devise new methods to annihilate countries and entire populations through overt and covert means. This may be excused by proponents of Pax Americana, neo-conservative chicken hawks and the whole array of Russophobes and dreamers of a Fourth Reich poisoning the entire planet, but expansion of NATO into a Global First Strike Expeditionary Force is illegal and a threat to the world peace, security and stability.
NATO PGS is just a key part of the plan for assisting the US in fulfilling its strategic military and geopolitical goal of establishing complete and total unchallenged American hegemony on the countries and peoples of the world. There is no real threat to justify it as a defensive system and it must be deemed illegal and stopped by the countries of the world who must finally band together and demand peace and an end to those who are against it.
Back to Ukraine and its strategic importance. With the development by the US/NATO of hypersonic nuclear capable ICBMS if NATO is allowed to place its missiles in Ukraine, if for example they are allowed to annex the eastern regions as well and place NATO missiles near Novaya Guta for example, then they will have their weapons only 450 kilometers (280 miles) from the heart of Moscow. With the development of the latest hypersonic missiles which are said to be able to travel at speeds of up to 3,600 miles per hour, that would allow the US/NATO to deliver a nuclear strike directly on the Kremlin in 4.66 minutes, a delivery time making a reaction extremely difficult.
Russia Implement a Similar Strategy?
Now just for a moment imagine if Russia were implementing a similar strategy: attempting to install missile elements less than 1,000 kilometers from Washington; attacking countries all over South and North America, overthrowing governments in Mexico, Canada and the like. Sound ridiculous? But that is exactly what the US is doing. Imagine if the US had lost the Cold War and agreed to become a Communist country and then the USSR started invading and destroying all the countries around it, killing millions of people in the process. That is exactly what US/NATO is doing and they must be stopped.
In order to facilitate continuing illegal regime change operations and military expansion the populations of the states who tax dollars are going to fund all of it need to be cowed and dumbed down into submission. They need to be manipulated into believing that there is a threat that warrants the continued out of control growth of the US/NATO military machine. They also need to be convinced that there is an enemy. Russia is that enemy. Hence what we on the ground see as an alternative reality was created. They have turned the facts on their head and in reality installed a nazi coup that is killing the civilian population and they are attempting to blame Russia.
Russian General Leonid Ivashov called the manipulation of the media by the US/NATO "the using of Goebbels like methods". General Ivashov was the head of the Russian Ministry of Defense and is the current president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies:
“Apparently they [officials of the European Union and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is is a project of the West, a new type of war: in both places you see a clear anti-Russian approach, and as is well known, wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . Kerry and Obama are encouraging in Kiev what they harshly repress in their country. European leaders break up unauthorized demonstrations with hoses, throwing demonstrators in jail, while in the Ukrainian case they do the exact opposite, and on top of that they threaten Russia. Logically, this is part of information warfare.
“Keep in mind that, under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is being prepared.
"They haven't even taught [opposition leaders] Klitchko, Yatsenyuk and Tyahnybok to run a government efficiently. The main thing is for them to take power, and destroy the Ukrainian state."
The Nation Destruction Business
After 9-11 Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz, the then US Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that the US Government is now in the business of destroying countries, executing presidents and changing governments at will.
General Wesley Clark who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, took issue with the Neo-Con architects from the Project for a New American Century and gave testimony that the US planned to overthrow seven countries after 9/11: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
Mr. Clark called the post 9-11 overtaking of the US Government a coup and said it was plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and "a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century". In a report Glen Greenwald cites a US Secretary of Defense Memo which gave even more detail and put a timeframe on the plan: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
My List of Countries Destroyed by US/CIA/NATO
The following is a list of countries, other than Ukraine, where the US has organized coup d’états, supported revolutions, overthrown governments, invaded, annexed, supported groups or forces who overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments or outright executed the leaders.
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Dakota, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo).
What they have done and are doing to Native Americans might also be added to the list and as the continuing genocide of the indigenous peoples is the foundation of endemic "American" racism and exceptionalism.
The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
21 May, 22:52
NATO will not stop attempting to destroy Russia – Danijel Simic
Under NATO there is no freedom of speech. Under NATO occupation, before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, activists and people who spoke openly about human rights or even the rights of Serbia under the Dayton Accords, were taken to US military bases and beaten, if all other attempts to silence their voices failed.
Freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights are flexible concepts for the elites behind the US-NATO war machine. In Bosnia - Herzegovina they are attempting to absorb the Srpska Republika, while in Serbia they staunchly insist on making Kosovo independent. As with Ukraine, this is a continued war to divide the Slavic world and to bring it to its knees or obliterate it entirely. We spoke to Danijel Simic – a writer, political analyst and activist about these issues, as well as the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Danijel Simic. He is a writer, a political activist, a commentator and the founder of the frontal.rs web resource.
Hello Sir! It’s a pleasure to be speaking with you.
Simic: The pleasure is all mine.
Simic: The Republika Srpska is a Serbian part of Bosnia. Until 1995, when the Dayton Peace Accord was founded, we used to have our army, we used to have our judiciary, we used to have our totally independent system of taxes. But from 1995 till now, under the pressure of the NATO forces, by brute force and by so-called high representative of the international community destroying every aspect of Dayton Peace Accords regarding Republika Srpska.
In the same time, they did totally the opposite in Serbia and Kosovo. Until the so-called independence in Kosovo they used to have totally the same documents and even flags from the same designer. You know, the NATO narco-cartel state in Kosovo has more or less the same flag as they made in Bosnia. So, the signature of the creators of those two states are visible to anyone who would like to look.
Simic: By NATO forces, NATO analysts or NATO think tanks.
The main explanation why they do all that brute forces to first pacify us then civilize us and include us in the family of civilized nations in European Union.
Then, when they do that, they do totally the opposite things. In the Republika Srpska, for example, which is a part of Bosnia, which is more than a federal state… Bosnia consists of two entities. Those entities are, more or less, in 1995 they were complete, complete states with the armies. The Republika Srpska had their own army.
And now, under NATO, they extinguished that fire of independence or autonomy in a military way. So, now, the Republika Srpska has only her own police force. And that police force was also targeted in 2006 and there was an enormous pressure on the Republika Srpska to give up on their police.
The Republika Srpska will be reduced to some kind of citizens’ society without any prerogative. And that was the main purpose of any so-called international diplomats or representatives from the international community. That was their main purpose here in Bosnia or in the Republika Srpska.
In Kosovo, Serbia is an independent state and they took the path of an independent state by force, by an overwhelming force of all major countries. And they do totally the opposite. They don’t want to unify that state and they sponsor their people with a terrorist background and people who are trafficking people, and drugs and all kinds of illegal and forbidden substances.
Simic: The Republika Srpska is currently in the state of pre-election hysteria. There will be elections in October. And the political parties are now in a full throttle to gain the trust of their voters.
And now in the Republika Srpska is a pretty dull situation, because we are talking about color revolutions. A pretty funny thing, because in the state of Bosnia, the so-called state, and the Republika Srpska, and Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina were under occupation of the NATO forces until they went to Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, more or less we can have like freedom of speech and more or less laws are respected by the international community.
Until the international forces went to Iraq and Afghanistan you could not freely speak in a public space of Republika Srpska, especially speak about rights of the Serbs or rights which are given by Dayton Peace Accords to the Republika Srpska. That was forbidden. If you tried to speak in that manner as I tried, you will be totally sanctioned by the international community, mainly in the matters that you will not gain any funds and you will not gain any commercial support.
And after that, if they do not succeed to extinguish your media or your think tank to express your thoughts about what is happening here, they will send you brute force, they will arrest you, they will take to Tuzla – the American military base – they will beat you up.
And they say – okay, we did that wrong, you are not suspect of a war crime. That was some other person and we made a mistake. But we have an international community of diplomatic and military, so we must be punished for your like total isolation in a physical and a psychological manner.
But what they are all doing, the President Dodik is now in some funny situation, because he was one of the leaders of the color revolution which took place in 1998 here in the Republika Srpska, when they extinguished lots of state prerogatives. Now in those times the Republika Srpska has their own license plates on a car, which were all in the Cyrillic alphabet. We have our own ID cards which were with the Serbian insignia – a two-headed eagle – with a Serbian insignia on it. And we have a Serbian flag and stuff like that.
Now, President Dodik was the person who under his first term as the Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska he gave all that under American pressure. But he was sponsored by the United States to be in power. But after that he learned the lesson, because he lost the next election, and he learned the lesson. His next appearance in a command post of our Republika Srpska meant he was a second time the Prime Minister. He learned that people doesn’t appreciate.
So, he is now leading a totally different politic – against the international community, against the Americans, who brought him into the power both times. So, they are now trying to get rid of him. So they will pressure him. There is, maybe same as in Ukraine, there is lots of corruption, there is lots of unemployment, there is lots of economic crisis here, but that is not the reason to violently overthrow some government.
In the Republika Srpska there will not be some kind of a color revolution, as we saw in Ukraine, because people here is totally aware, maybe not really on a conscious level but on a subconscious level. They remember 1998 and that color revolution which totally put us in a totally wrong direction after the Dayton Peace Accord.
Simic: For me, personally, when I hear the phrases as democracy, rule of law free society, open society, I’m all flat, I'm terrified, when someone is trying to speak about such things. And certainly in Bosnia Herzegovina, in that Muslim Croats part, especially in the parts with the majority of Muslim people we had a colored revolution of some kind.
It was a real revolution, in the matter that they burnt some government buildings and overtook them, and stuff like that, because that was the plan of Muslim politicians here in Bosnia to make to international community, but some will look they see burning buildings, battles with police and stuff like that. But that was only in the parts which are settled by Muslims.
Their plan was to make some new convention about Bosnia on which they will proclaim that Bosnia is unfunctional state because the Republika Srpska, because the Republika Srpska is always being blamed for everything that you can imagine. Everything is Republika Srpska to blame.
So they try to do that, and even if one citizen in the Republika Srpska, even one in Banja Luka to throw a stone on some government buildings, they will call violations of international convention and they will make a new constitution of Bosnia. People here are subconsciously and consciously totally aware of what their plan was, and so that plan wasn’t fulfilled as they planned.
So, when we see what is going on in Ukraine, it has the same signature as was in former Yugoslavia. The same forces which tore apart the former Yugoslavia are doing now that same thing in Ukraine. They are like totally satisfied when the Russian people or Slavic people wage wars against themselves.
And what I'm seeing now in Ukraine is totally awful. I’m like totally disgusted what the West is capable to do just to gain some political power. It is totally the same as it was in the past. If you take like Hitler’s opinion that Ukraine and the western parts of Russia will be Ostland or eastern lands to settle the German people, because they needed their liebenstraum or a large space for living.
So, it is happening in the European Union. The European Union is trying to overtake Ukraine from the Russian zone of influence. And by my opinion, that happening now in Ukraine is the Cuban crisis in the Russian backyard and Russia must react really strongly. If they do not do what Kennedy did in the Cuban crisis, the consequences will be devastating to Russia.
Simic: Full-scale civil war, which is terrible. And what Russia now needs to do is to strongly backup those so-called pro-Russian activists on the east and that federation of people who will like to have a federation of Ukraine, with some larger portion of land which is Russian speaking, and to have more rights of the Russian language and stuff like that. Russia must threaten with their army to reason these people from the illegal government in Ukraine to stop using army against their own people.
They do not hesitate, they use force. They will send tanks on Slavyansk, they will send tanks on Kramatorsk, they will send tanks to Odessa, they will send tanks to Donetsk, they don’t care. My prediction to the crisis in Ukraine is not so bright, it is gloomy to the Russian side, because Russia is acting pretty sustaining. Russia must react strongly and Russia must put cash flow, you know money flow into Ukraine and other countries.
For example, here in the Republika Srpska is a fertile ground to have good pro-Russian agenda here in the republic. But the Russian presence here is through some companies, who are writing in Latin alphabet, contents not to offend Muslims and Croats and they are not publically advertise themselves as the Russian companies or do any deeds which will improve Russia’s positions here.
Most of the people here in the Republika Srpska, because of the totally media domination of the Western powers from 1995 till now, they think that Russia is some backward dark state of conquered and conquered unions and poverty. And the fact that Russia is the 8th economy in the world, they do not know that, because nobody is speaking to them.
For example, Russian channels, when they appear here, they slowly but strongly extinguish them. So there is a lot of cable operators which are now possessed by some NATO countries, they switched off the Russian channels in the time of crisis in Ukraine. So, they are, and that government in Kiev, do not hesitate. They are doing the same here.
Simic: Slavic people, which are mostly represented by Russia, as the largest nation and with the most technological and economic advances to the other nations, they look at Russia as a fertile ground, to Russian civil wars and all those things which will implode in Russia. They are trying to do with Russia what they did with the Soviet Union.
They pumped cash flows through the NGOs in all of Russia. You know of Ukraine there is more than 400 NGOs in Ukraine which are receiving unimaginable amounts of money. Until the recent times you cannot do anything if you have not the support of the NGOs from the United States or the European Union.
Simic: When you meet even the most liberal Americans, they will say – "okay, we are terrorizing all the world and we are opposing ourselves as a world’s policeman, but if we didn’t to not do that, someone will do that to us". And that’s why they will not stop.
This is John Robles, you were listening to an interview with Danijel Simic. He is a writer, a political analyst, activist and commentator from the Srpska Republika. He is also the founder of the frontal.rs web resource.
Thank you very much for listening, and as always I wish you the best wherever you may be.
You can reach John at email@example.com.
US Claims it Will Own the Arctic
Amid the endless war paradigm being a peace activist is a dangerous proposition. We spoke to one such brave person , the coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space – to get his views on the current beating of the drums of war in Washington.
Good! Nice to be on air with you again.
First, let me talk about the general demonization that is going on in the US media, the mainstream media. It's been unrelenting.
Today following the Geneva meeting, both Kerry and Obama have been on air, essentially downplaying the possibilities coming out of that meeting, really, in a way, trying to sabotage any expectations of anything positive coming out of it. Clearly, they are trying to beat the war drums and they are beating them hard.
This past weekend I flew to Toronto to talk at the University of Toronto. While I was in Chicago, waiting for my plane there, in the airport I was watching CNN. And there was Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about how we need to give weapons to the Ukrainian Government. And his reason for it, he said: because Russia armed the Vietnamese during the US war in Vietnam and we needed to pay them back. So...
Oh yes! I heard it with my own ears.
That's right! It was unbelievable. So, you know, this is the kind of stuff that is being heard on the TV in the US day in and day out.
No! You know, Zbigniew Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor.
He is known to have recruited Obama, when Obama was a student at Columbia University. I once read that Brzezinski said that he vetted Obama early on.
Right! On your other question about NATO expansion, it is quite dramatic.
The US is moving 18 F-16 fighter planes into Poland and has committed to taking over the rotation of NATO war planes that are flying over the Baltic air patrols. Supposedly, there are 12 US planes, 4 from Great Britain, 4 from France and 6 from Canada. So, there is a major war plane escalation by the US and NATO along the Russian border.
At the same time air patrols out of Lithuania which would put these jets just literally 5 minutes flight from St. Petersburg.
And then, the US has sent in three Aegis Destroyers into the Black Sea in recent days, including the Donald Cook most recently. These are all missile defense carrying warships, a key element in the US first strike attack planning.
The idea being that after a first strike upon Russian or Chinese underground nuclear missile silos, Russia or China would then fire a retaliatory strike. And these so-called missile defense systems onboard these Navy Aegis Destroyers would help take them out, take out that retaliatory capability.
So, they are the shield after the first strike is lunged into the heart of Russia or China. China is being surrounded by these same kinds of missile defense systems.
The US and NATO have already moved ground-based missile defense systems into Poland. They are going to be putting them in Romania. They have put an X-Band Radar, a missile defense radar system in Turkey. And so, the goal is to really to continue to encircle Russia with these missile defense systems and many people on the right wing are calling for missile defense deployments in Ukraine now as well.
Clearly, this whole NATO expansion is a violation of promises that the US made years ago, at the time of the reunification of Germany. Gorbachev talking to the US then Secretary of State James Baker was promised that NATO would not expand eastward. And when Clinton became president, he of course got NATO going on steroids, and they've been expanding ever since.
So, clearly, the US and NATO are doing everything they can to encircle Russia. And there is even talk now of moving US ground troops near the Russian border, into some of these NATO countries bordering Russia.
I think there are a couple different things going on here and it is good to review each of them. One thing is: with the supposed drawdown in Afghanistan… I'm skeptical that it is going to be a complete drawdown, I think the US will maintain some troops in Afghanistan. But there will be some drawdown in Afghanistan.
So, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex are eager to come up with a new enemy in order to justify the massive military spending that exists today.
So, by demonizing Russia at this moment, by helping to create this destabilization of that region, the US is able to pull off that in the eyes of the American people: "Oh, we can't cut the military budget, look at Russia, they are trying to take over the world." So, that's one element of it.
Number two, we know that Russia has the world's largest supply of natural gas. And one thing I'm quite certain of is that the role of the Pentagon in the world today is to serve as the primary resource extraction service for multinational corporations.
And we must remember that kind of well-know video of Victoria Nuland last December in Washington speaking at an event where she said that the US has already spent $5 billion on this project. And on either side of her on the stage were the logos of Exxon and Chevron. And so, clearly, this is part of the agenda, the fossil fuel corporations would love to get their hands on the natural gas that Russia has.
In addition, the RAND Corporation has a study that shows that we should be breaking Russia up into various pieces, Balkanizing it.
There is one other important factor. With climate change there is already a 40% reduction of the ice up in the Arctic Region. Just at the end of March our US Senator from Maine, one of our two senators, Angus King, he is an independent, went on a ride on a nuclear submarine underneath the Arctic ice. And he sent a message around, when he came back.
Also, onboard that particular mission was Thomas Friedman, the NY Times columnist. And he wrote a column in the NY Times called Parallel Parking in the Arctic Ocean. And he talked about being onboard this navy subarctic warfare exercise.
Also, I've learnt that there is a new Pentagon study out, called US Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030 that says that there are 90 billion barrels of oil underneath the Arctic, there is 1,669 trillion ft3 of natural gas and that operating bases will be needed so that the US and its NATO partners: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden can militarily train together. In fact, Canada has appropriated $25 billion, their largest military appropriation in their country's history, to build armed combat vessels largely for this expedition in the arctic.
And also, onboard that particular submarine on that occasion at the end of March was Admiral Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, who was quoted in the Freidman article as saying that: "We are going to own the Arctic Region".
So, when one looks at a map, you see that Russia has the largest land border of any other country in the arctic region. So, I think one additional reason for this Ukraine situation is to beat the drums, stir up the American people so that they will support the expensive and very provocative, and dangerous, militarization of the Arctic, which in the end will be aimed at Russia.
I've seen one poll asking people do they support Obama's aggressive posture towards Russia? Should we try to stop them from taking Crimea? And 50-some percent of the American people said "No, we don't want to get into a tangle". But they are working it hard.
And one thing we have to remember is when George W. Bush attacked Iraq in 2003, the American people were massively opposed to that operation, but they still did it anyway. These people, I believe, are literally crazy.
And Obama is under the control of these people. I don't think he is unwilling, I think he is a willing partner in this whole thing, but he clearly works for these corporate interests. And so, they are reluctant to listen to the people of the US.
I think there needs to be, you know, a lot of us are working hard on this now in this country, but there really needs to be a greater work around the world on this issue calling out the US for what I think is one of the most serious military escalations since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The thing I fear though is the way that the US and NATO are ratcheting this up these days. You know, it doesn't have to necessarily only be an intentional attack. These kinds of things can get out of hand very quickly and can spiral very quickly into a real shooting war.
And they are really responsible to no one except the few elites, because what we are seeing in the US, essentially, is the privatization of foreign and military policy.
I read a book some years ago by a former CIA agent. And he told the story about leaving the CIA where he worked in the Middle East. And he left the CIA and went to work for oils corporations, and was doing the secret backchannel work for them; assassinations, destabilizations and the whole thing. And in fact, he kind of bragged that often times he would go into a CIA station in a particular country and they wouldn't have a clue about what was going on.
And so, this whole privatization of the US foreign and military policy has been going on for a long time and it is really increasing these days. This particular book, I'd really recommend it, is called The Game Player: Confessions of the CIA's Original Political Operative by a guy named Miles Copeland quite a revealing story.
US Criminally Invades Countries Without Pretext
Even though the US organized and spent 5 billion dollars on overthrowing Ukraine they continue to worm their way out of responsibility and continue to support the lawless killers they forced to power in Ukraine. I spoke to Bruce Gagnon on these issues and more. He said that John Kerry is now the laughing stock of the US and I would add even the world, for when he said you don’t invade countries without a pretext, he was obviously talking about himself.
Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. Bruce . He is the coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. This is part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com.
Gagnon: They are not showing that, they are not showing that here in the US because in the US it's a very carefully selected footage to create the impression that the people are righteous and that they've done nothing wrong and that they are being killed by the police even when they have provoked it themselves. So clearly there has been a script that has been written for this whole operation in Ukraine, clearly there is a public relations' script here in this country, mainstream media and I'm hearing from my friends in Canada and Australia and England that in most countries it is the same script. They are following the script very closely, the media, they are all using the same words to describe it. The Russian government, the intentions of Russia are all being..Let me just give an example to illustrate this.
Gagnon: I think it is an interesting, you know the story of the recently appointed since the so called revolution the new Navy Rearadmiral for the Ukraine, admiral Berezovsky, he did a news conference over the weekend in Crimea where he said he was not going to support the coup and that he was wanting to support the Crimean autonomy.
Gagnon: That story was displayed on mainstream television here, in America this morning because I saw it. They said that admiral Berezovsky had surrendered to Russia. Ok, he had surrendered, in other words Russia has taken him prisoner, ok? So that is the way it is translated, that is the way.
Gagnon: That is the brainwashing if you will that is going on here in the US. And so there are people even on the left here in the US that has taken this bait, hook, line and sinker.
Gagnon: What is the number?
Gagnon: Let me ask you this question: over the weekend I heard a very brief mention that some of the fascist elements that were involved in this so called revolution in Kiev, that they were boarding trains and heading East and were trying to go in the East to try to create fights, disrupt, coup, violence, that kind of thing, is it true?
Gagnon: Yeah, and Berzinsky was on TV this morning in the US in SNBC, his daughter is one of the cohost of the morning new show and he was on there and he was doing his very best to demonize Russia as he always does.
Gagnon: I'm sure it is true. As we know he was one of those that's directed Obama.
Gagnon: Berzinsky Obama when he was a student at Columbia University so he was one of the first to see this bright young man who is very ambitious with no real core beliefs and they knew that he did a perfect kind of guy that they could mold and turn into the first black president who is very the oligarchy controlled.
Gagnon: One of the big jokes on the Internet over the weekend and today – it's just been flattered is John Kerry making the statement 'you just don't in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext'. He said that on CBS Sunday morning program Face of the Nation. So all over the Internet over the weekend and today people are just laughing at John Kerry because it is such hypocrisy. He as a senator voted in favor of the war in Iraq and he now tries to pretend that Russia is doing what the US has been doing for years and years and years going around, invading countries without any pretext whatsoever: Libya, Syria..
Gagnon: I'll tell you what they are, they are habitual liars, they are habitual liars. And they've been doing it for so long. They can do it without breaking a sweat. But let me tell you something, in spite of the fact that most American don't know and don't think about Ukraine and probably most Americans cannot find Ukraine out on map, despite that people intuitively now are becoming skeptical of this kind of situation. So even though there is mere total brainwashing from the corporate media, even though there is all that things, remarkably still people are figuring it out. And I must say that today I watched a TV show on Russia Today TV – RT and they had a representative from the Tea Party, the Conservative Party, and they guy was fantastic. He was fantastic. He was saying as we are saying, I have said on this conversation with you.
Gagnon: Yes. This was very encouraging because he comes from the organization called the 1103 Institute.
Gagnon: You might consider interviewing this guy. He is the Tea Party guy, his name is Daniel McAdams.
Gagnon: But anyway..
Gagnon: That is the perfect question. And the answer is – I agree with you because all the scenery, all I've seen is as you said people in Crimea, gathering families, people with flags, getting their pictures taken with Russian soldiers. That is what I've seen.
Gagnon: Only small.. you know, we don't get a lot of..I don't want to watch too much television, let me put it that way. Because I can't stand all the lies they tell. I haven't seen too many pictures.
Gagnon: John, I'm going to need to run.
Gagnon: Thank you, John. I appreciate it too.
That was the end of part 2 of an interview with Mr. Bruce Gagnon, the coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Stay with us.
Fine John. How are you?
Yes, we understand that Crimea had been part and parcel of Russia. And the referendum and the vote of the people now has opted for reunification with the motherland. So the West’s obviously reacts to suit its own interests and does not respect any principles. We are faced with another example of “double standard policy” of the West.
When the Kosovo and Metohija separatists, the Albanian separatists, led by a terrorist organization, proclaimed the separation and independence of Kosovo and Metohija, the West immediately supported this decision and immediately recognized the independence of Kosovo and Metohija claiming that it was a unique case and that the Albanian national minority in Kosovo and Metohija had legitimate reasons and a legitimate right to secede from Serbia.
When we said that it will be a precedent and it may backfire in Europe and elsewhere in the world, they said: “Oh, no, it is a unique case.”
When President Putin in Munich in 2007 said that it is not a unique case, of course, it was not a unique case.
From the very beginning we claimed that it was a precedent and it will backfire on the stability and the situation in Europe, because we know that there are many separatist movements in almost every corner of Europe, not to speak about Africa, Asia, Latin America and so on.
It has really become quite clear that the Western powers have one universal criterion, that is that any event, any claim should suit to their interests. Anything that suits to their interests is proclaimed to be in accordance with international law, in accordance with democratic principles, in accordance with human rights and so on.
When they interfered in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia in 1998, in 1999 and in the year of 2000 and so on, they said: “Well, sovereignty and territorial integrity have lost their classic meanings. Now, with the integration processes in Europe and elsewhere, borders do not have been very essential meaning.”
So, in those years they pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars on the so-called process of democratization in Yugoslavia. Actually, this was financing the opposition in Yugoslavia and trying to bring the so-called democratic opposition of Serbia to power.
They could not do it so simply, they actually had to intervene militarily. And they practically have stolen Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and later on they have installed the democratic opposition in Belgrade and forces which would respect the western interests.
And ever since then, up to now the authority in Belgrade is characterized as being pro-Western. But nobody really says: ”How about that this authority be pro-Serbian?”
They are not characterized as pro-Serbian, but pro-western. And they keep continuity in always helping structures which will take western interests as national interests.
In Ukraine we saw something similar. They pumped in, as I understand, about $5.5 billion. What for? For the “democratization” of Ukraine. And obviously, they were not accepting a pro-Ukrainian government, they have always tried to install, to bring into power the pro-western government in Ukraine.
And actually, by doing this they have destabilized one of the largest European countries. Now, they act like they are being surprised about the crop that they have from the seeds, that they seeded in Ukraine.
Well, in 1999 we had a precedent, the blueprint which was later on followed in overthrowing the legitimate governments in many other countries which conducted independent policies. And all this NATO aggression in 1999 against Serbia and Montenegro, against the then Yugoslavia had been a turning point towards the globalization of interventionism and a turning point of expansion towards the East.
They have pursued this policy of expansion regardless of the interests of Russia and so on. They did not respect any agreement. They pretend that the privilege of the West is even to not recognize what they sign or what they agree upon.
They have adopted the UN Security Council resolution 1244 about Kosovo and Metohija, about sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. But ever since then they said: “Well, this was not really what we meant. This was only for the moment.”
And when you react: “How about the decisions, how about the agreements?
They say: “The privilege of the West is not to respect even the signed agreements.”
And we see the consequences of such a policy, of taking into consideration only their selfish interests and disregarding the interests of the others.
We see, for instance in Kosovo and Metohija, that they had an alliance with the clear-cut terrorists – the UÇK organization (Kosovo Liberation Army). They were in alliance conducting military aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. So, they seem to have double standards in making the difference who are the terrorists and who are not.
Al Qaeda once is a terrorist organization, in other instances, like in Syria, it is a lie. The UÇK until 1998 was a terrorist organization and in 1999 it was proclaimed to be a liberation organization. The only criterion is whether some force, some factors, serves their interests or not.
This is a really very dangerous situation. I think that with such a practice of taking into consideration only their own interests, the West is actually questioning the future of peace and stability in Europe. With that strategy and that policy Europe is not a stable continent any longer.
I think that such a policy of expansion, of disregard of the other countries’ and other nations’ interests is a real danger for the peace and stability in Europe.
Yes, this is another proof of the destructive policy of NATO and the leading western powers. They are not misguided, they must know who the neo-nazis are, who the fascists are. And even knowing all that they are taking them as allies, as helpers.
So, once again, whatever and whoever suits their interests, it is an ally. They have this almost proverb that their friends are always right. And their friends can be mujahidins, Al-Qaeda, UÇK terrorists or neo-nazis, neo-fascist forces and organizations. If at one moment such forces can be abused, can be exploited, they don’t care.
They just proclaim them to be the forces of democracy, of progress or something. But there is a real question of what remains of “civilization values”, what about the minimum of morality in politics, the minimum of principled position, the minimum of respect of universal principles and universal criteria.
They cannot pass through this stage without suffering, without endangering their own interests. I can only hope that they will show in practice the respect for some democratic values, for some civilization values.
They are behaving like they are being the earth representatives of the Almighty God. And the only right and good, and democratic, and human is only what is proclaimed and certified in Washington or Brussels. This is a really dangerous policy because it reminds of certain strategies from the past, which brought tragedy to civilization.
Whether they are capable to understand the dangers of their own policy or not, it is questionable. But we, the rest should read well that this is kind a strategy of dictatorship in the world relations.
We have suffered a lot from the international sanctions, first, in May 1992, when the UN Security Council enacted the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These sanctions were lifted in 1995 after the Dayton Peace Agreement.
But even then the US continued to apply the so-called outer wall of sanctions against Yugoslavia. They prevented Yugoslavia from resuming membership rights in the UN, in the OSCE and in some of the European and international forums.
These sanctions actually are aimed at ordinary people. Those who suffer from such generalized sanctions are the ordinary citizens of any country. That’s why in principle I am strongly against sanctions.
And as far as threatening Russia with sanctions, I think these threats have no base and no perspective. Russia is too big, too powerful and too vast country. It is the largest country in the world. It is almost “mission impossible” to apply sanctions against Russia.
But even if they try to apply any kind of sanctions, this will certainly backfire and hurt the interests of those who initiate the sanctions.
US/NATO Imperialism a Threat to Civilization
Yugoslav FM Živadin Jovanović
Yes, indeed I believe so. If 1999 NATO/US led aggression against Yugoslavia was a turning point toward globalization of interventionism, toward militarization of European and international relations. It was a turning point in strategy of global domination of the West, then I think Ukrainian case and the Crimean referendum to reunite with Russia is another kind of turning point.
This I consider to be turning point towards multi-polar world relations, toward resisting the policy of domination of the West. It is to my belief a historically important turning point opening the hope for democratization of world relations opening the space for real respect of universal principals of international law and universal principal of international relations.
I would believe that this is a turning point toward a higher respect of universal organizations such as United Nations and toward respecting of the basic principles of UN Charter. And I think it is turning point toward abandoning the policy of double standards and disregard of the legitimate interests of other countries.
It is simply the beginning I think for the relieving Europe and the world of the threats of domination from one side only.
It is obvious that the US disrespects international law, that they disrespect international principles of international organizations. They take all those like tools to suit the interests of the US. The US is a big power but it is disregarding the interests of Europe, disregarding the interests of Russia and other big and responsible countries.
I think for the beginning we should discourage and put some limitations to expansionist policy and disregard of other countries’ interests on the part of the US.
It would be necessary to unite the countries and nations struggling for democratization of international relations, struggling against interventionism and against expansionist imperialist policy of NATO, EU, and the US. And certainly I think this should be requiring serious efforts on the part of wide international community, especially the countries like Russia, China, India, like countries of BRICS and so on.
I think Russia should do well to call upon BRICS countries and Shanghai Association countries to consider new situation brought about by expansionist policy of the US, NATO and EU. This is touching the interests of Russia right now, but from a principled point of view it is a policy questioning interests of the world community, it is the question whether we should enter an era of democratic international relations or we should be silent and accept a policy of expansion and a policy of domination.
We all hope that a political solution will be found for the crisis in Ukraine. To have political solution I think NATO should abandon idea of forcing Ukraine to become a member of NATO. Ukraine should be treated as a country to make its own decisions and to be let alone from the Western interference, from the Western pressures and so on.
I believe that it is primarily in the interests of Europe including the EU to find out a modus vivendi with Russia and to accept substantial dialogue between Brussels and Moscow.
It is my strong belief that long term interests of Europe require stability of Brussels/Moscow relationship and it really requires more independent and pro-independent position and behavior of Europe. In this regard I would underline importance of dialogue between Moscow and Berlin which is certainly, as far as Germany is concerned, a leading EU country. And no doubt that among all European countries Germany has the greatest interest for stable relations with Russia. I think that it is possible.
Otherwise if Germany and EU pursue the policy of acting on behalf of the US interests I think it will be very bad not only for Ukraine but for Europe in general. And it would further lead to a profound long term European crisis.
I think there should be a lot of wisdom applied to avoid disintegration of Ukraine. It is one of perspectives, but that could be, I think, avoided by rational and principled policy without any threats or blackmails addressed to Moscow.
Moscow I don’t believe will bound to blackmailing from the West. It is certainly another type of power now than in 1999. Now about Ukraine, I would be a realist, it is very serious, it cannot be predicted with all certainty but certainly there is a possibility to find a political solution in the interests of stability of European continent. Nobody needs further destabilization and creation of situation of further arms race or disturbing development and profounding the socioeconomic crisis which is reigning in major parts of Europe.
As far as our conference is concerned, we have already mentioned, these days exactly from 21st to 25th of March the Belgrade Forum with a number of other independent nonpartisan associations organizes a big international gathering in Belgrade under the theme: ‘Global Peace Instead of Global Confrontation and Global Imperialism’. And it is devoted to Fifteenth Anniversary of NATO aggression, it is in memory of thousands of our citizens who were killed, in memory of hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons from Kosovo and from other parts of former Yugoslavia.
We shall try that this event should not be only of memorial character, we should try to answer from now on what should be the task of peace loving forces in Europe and in the world? In this regard I think we all first of all should struggle for the truth about Yugoslav crisis, struggle further for the true presentation of NATO aggression in 1999 which was the first European war after the WWII. We should try to spread the notion and information that this was the war not against Yugoslavia or Serbia and Montenegro only, it was really the war against Europe and strangely enough the war against Europe participated by Europe.
It was also one turning point when Europe was recognizing not to have its own strategy and independence. I think there were European countries which joined the US not thinking any further what will be further development, what will be further consequences. There were other countries which entered the war against Yugoslavia for their revanchist aims, revanchist philosophy and there were simply smaller countries which didn’t have any kind of independence, which only had to listen what was the call from the US and to obey.
Anyway today we can see what kind of problems this NATO aggression 15 years ago has brought to Europe. Nothing has been resolved in the Balkans but many problems have been opened in Europe and in the world. A precedent was made, a blueprint for NATO interventions in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Mali, and everywhere else.
And it is not really only to speak about military interventions because although they are the most tragic event but it is also to speak about interventions of clandestine nature, interventions like in Syria, like in Venezuela now, like in Ukraine now and so on.
And we can really see that all those interventions had one objective and still have one objective – domination of leading Western powers, first of all of the US in the world. And this is the danger really because those who should be victims of domination do not accept such a position, they are ready to fight.
And from this fact that the West doesn’t change colonial attitudes, imperial attitudes as strategy and the rest of the world not accepting to be victim of such an imperial policy I think this may lead to either confrontation and that is why all the forces of peace should join hands and stop this imperial policy endangering nowadays civilization.
We will have friends from all over the world, from about 60 countries in Europe and from other continents will be our guests and will be speakers at the conference. We will have a difficulty to accommodate all the people who will voice in favor of peace, who will support multi-polarization and democratization of the world relations.
President Putin is a Hope for the Oppressed
Yugoslav FM Zivadin Jovanovic
In Yugoslavia the US/NATO designed a blueprint to disguise aggressive war as humanitarian intervention and much of the world was fooled into believing it. Since then the US/NATO have destroyed countries with impunity. In the Voice of Russia's interview with the former Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia Živadin Jovanović he is asked his opinion of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A couple of years ago I was asked by your colleagues in Belgrade: "Why does the Serbian public like Putin so much?"
And I said: "Probably, because of the feeling that Serbia although it is a small country would like to have its own Putin".
Putin has become a symbol of dignity of nation, a symbol of a leader who doesn’t aim, in politics, from today to tomorrow, symbol of a politician of long term strategy and a long term perspective for Russia, for Europe and for the world.
And I think that he is widely respected what I can surely witness he is highly respected all over Serbia and in the region and exactly as a hope for more justice and more peace, stability, for hope for respect of law and basic conventions as you said, respect for the United Nations.
Therefore I think he first of all needs and I believe he enjoys full the support of Russia’s population and of countries surrounding Russia bit I think that his role should also be to encourage international bodies such as the Unied Nations, such as the OSCE and international forums to join forces for just world relations.
Russia is certainly a big power, she is already a superpower. Putin is certainly a leader opening the hopes not only the Russian population but of many oppressed peoples and countries all over the world that there is need to initiate movement and movement of all constructive and peace loving forces in the world and especially international bodies.
So that the other even formally accept this struggle for peace, dignity, equality and partnership.
Thank you for inviting me although I believe there are many people who will speak their minds even with a greater wisdom than myself.
Ok, bye bye.
US/NATO Lawlessness, Post-USSR Dehumanization and the 1%
Communism was supposed to lift up the proletariat and raise the workers to the status of those who governed them while bringing those in the ruling class down to a level that was closer to that of the people they were supposed to be ruling.
This very concept was the antithesis of Capitalism, which under the pretense of allowing for opportunities for those who worked hard to rise up socially and economically, was believed to be better than Communism. Yet western Capitalism has now shown itself for what it truly is, a system where only those at the top can prosper and control the rest leading to the creation and rule of what we have in the world today, the 1 percent.
The end of the USSR was not just the end of the greatest power that the history of mankind has seen but also the signaled the end of the idea that the worker, the proletariat, and thus the general human population for under Communism we were all workers, also had the right to human dignity and were also just as important than those who are gifted with being able to hold and maintain power and wealth. In other words the ruling class. Without the USSR as a balance and a threat to global capitalism those in power and those at the top of the capitalist system were free to begin the complete and total dehumanization of the 99%.
As has become the vernacular this ruling class is now called the 1% (thanks to the Occupy Movement) and the standard dehumanizing term, I say dehumanizing because it removes the concept of class and oppressor from the equation and turns them into just a number protecting their identities. But what is the 1%? The 1% is an official union of elites and monied corporate interests that have subverted and taken over the government of the United States and its allies and are literally attempting to take over the world, subjugate and enslave its people and control all of the lands, resources and most importantly capital.
The 1% do not have a political or ideological platform with which they interface with the people of the world. They also are free from the constraints of international law, sovereignty and national or state loyalty. They have one goal, the complete and total taking over of the world. Hence the 1% are free to include almost anyone in their “club” be they Nazis, Jews, Muslims, Evangelical Christians, or anyone else. The only requirement is huge amassed wealth and the willingness to use power and subvert peoples and governments to assist in the fulfilling of their master plan which is a New World Order (NOW) and a one world government which will cement their control of ALL peoples countries and resources.
The USSR was not pliable or workable into such a plan, the very idea of Communism, that the individual was important was the antithesis of their aspirations and hence had to be destroyed. Thus the United States was chosen as the instrument (if not the instigator) and the state to facilitate this takeover. The political, social-economic conditions and more importantly the instruments for iron state control were already in place. What they needed was a catalyst and an event to bring about their plan. This was drawn up by a neo-conservative think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
The PNAC thought they were drawing up a plan for establishing American hegemony worldwide and American control of the world but they were mistaken, the end plan calls for the end of the United States as it was originally conceived. With a people completely subjugated and in no way “free” or living in a democracy. Engaging and manipulating the neo-conservative thinkers and believers and those on the far right was necessary because they were effective in demonizing and gathering support to dehumanize and subjugate the rest of the population. This dehumanization is key to establishing their NWO. People must not believe they have no power or are important, people must not believe they can stop the 1% and even more importantly the people must be brought to believing they have absolutely no rights or liberties or willingly give those up.
9-11 was the catalyst that brought it all together. It allowed for the military industrial complex and the organs of state security to establish a dictatorship of security and to expand their reach beyond national borders and spread word wide. It was also more important in that, while calling it an outrage and the reason for the stripping away of rights necessary for the introduction of the endless-war-hyper-security-paradigm, it showed to those who questioned the official version, and those who rightfully understood that something was wrong, that humans were valueless and could be wiped off the face of the earth at will and nothing would ever be done about it. 9-11 was also important because it proved that the global 1% could in fact do whatever it was they wanted and work in unison.
Everything we have seen, the internet, the violent repression of the Occupy Movement, the continued destruction and targeting of independent thinking and socialist states, the iron control and manipulation of the media, the illegal detention of hundreds at Guantanamo, the trampling on the rights of whistleblowers and those who seek the truth, the continued advance against Russia and China and the overthrow and destruction of state after state are all part of their plan. You are not human to them, your country is not important to them, they will destroy and subjugate you and your people and as they want you to believe, there is nothing you can do about it.
Saying we will never know who they are will only be serving their interests. I argue that we will know (if in fact we do not already know “shudder”) and that knowledge will be made available to the people soon, no matter how hard the 1% have tried to obfuscate and stay in the shadows.
Judging by what we have seen and perhaps more importantly, what we have not seen, the 1% is actually a circle of individuals much smaller than what has been publicized to date. They are compartmentalized and organized in tiers with only need to know knowledge of their part of the “master plan”. Behind it, in the shadows, and at the top with full knowledge there may only be as little as 3-7 people.
At the top of the hierarchy are the heads of the key instruments of control. But even these individuals, no matter how powerful they are or appear to be are not privy to the master plan. These individuals are changed at will when they either know too much or are no longer performing their proper function. In the US Government they include the President of the United States, the heads of the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice, the newly formed DHS, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all other instruments of control.
In the public domain and internationally this tier is populated by the heads of international financial institutions, military, scientific and energy bodies and alliances, legal and regulatory bodies, educational organizations, energy and agricultural trade bodies, medical associations and media conglomerates, including: the UN, the IMF, NATO, the ICC, the IAEA, the EU and almost the entire global network of corporate media.
Internationally this tier is also populated by the heads of state of “allied” nations, the directors of intelligence services and militaries and the heads of central banks and exchanges and financial bodies. Again this of course includes the global media. In order to ensure the control and manipulation of these bodies internationally the NSA and FVEY countries use all of the resources at their disposal to ensure control. This is why the Snowden revelations have caused such a stir among the US elites.
The NWO requires global cooperation in subjugating and controlling the masses and manipulating economies and all spheres of societal and political life. If one is to accept that the events of 9-11 were an orchestrated inside job to serve as a catalyst towards global takeover and that it was a joint US/Israeli/Saudi operation then the level of this “cooperation” and the lengths they will go has been revealed.
Saudi control of Al-Qaeda throughout the Middle East was revealed by the head of Saudi’s intelligence, Prince Bandar last June in a released conversation with President Vladimir Putin, during which attempted to bribe and then threaten the Russian leader with terrorist acts. Bandar, a long Bush family friend, also admitted that Chechen terrorists and terrorists in Syria were under his control.
Connections between Israeli Mossad and Saudi in 9-11 are documented all over the internet even though all such claims are demonized and marginalized as conspiracy theories. Since the US Government has never properly investigated the events or offered a believable explanation and in light of confessions and admissions by elites such as Larry Silverstein and John Kerry on orders to “pull” demolish the WTC buildings these Saudi/Mossad/Al-Qaeda/CIA connections take on more meaning.
So who is the 1%? Who is really in power and control of the world and who are the members of the alliance and what is their agenda? President Putin and the leaders of the BRICS are definitely not part of the conspiracy, I think that is clear but the list of players may or may not surprise you. These are mostly hereditary power brokers and their families who have stayed in the shadows but maintained their positions some for over a hundred years.
If like with any crime we look at who has benefitted the most and follow the rule that these people will not make themselves known then among the top 7 suspects and beneficiaries are the following: The Rockefeller Family, the Morgan Family and the Carnegie Family are probably at the top, with the House of Saud, the Bush Family, the Vanderbilt Family, the hidden owners of nazi founded Volkswagen, Benyamin Netanyahu and representatives of MOSSAD and Israel and perhaps one or two others on the second tier.
These families and their relatives and cronies control almost the entire US military industrial complex (GE, Raytheon and others), big oil (Exxon, Shell, ets.), manufacturing, agriculture and food production. Through indirect influence and even direct positions in the government, such as John Rockefeller IV and his stints on the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, they control almost every aspect of the American Government.
Many members of these families have also been key in developing CIA and the western intelligence apparatus and many of the most odious CIA programs, including eugenics and race control through genetic manipulation. They were also key in allowing 40,000 nazis to find refuge in the US after WWII and many have benefitted from and even implemented nazi ideas, scientific research and plans into being. One might spread this to Europe and ask why the founder of the European Commission and Union Walter Hallstein was a captured nazi lawyer who was taken to America and then released.
It is also interesting to note that nazi style eugenics was not the creation of the Nazis but was something invented in America and funded by the Carnegie family long before the nazis ever existed.
Israeli ties to the 1% are largely in banking, diplomacy and media control and include Gerald Levin, the Bronfman family, Tanley Gold, Sumner Redstone, Dennis Dammerman, Peter Chernin, Samuel Newhouse and Shamrock Holdings, these are Jewish individuals and Israeli holdings which control almost all of the western media and world media through subsidiaries. Their US media control includes: ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, Interscope Records and many hundreds of more magazines, web sites and newspapers.
Middle East and Muslim ties are also prevalent but they are mostly related to terrorism, oil and filling orders for Israel and the US with regard to the Middle East as well as international terrorism and false flag attacks.
Another group of particular interest is the Bilderberg Group and who the real hidden organizers and funders of that forum may be, their agenda is clearly one of maintaining the 1%’s hold on the power and wealth of the planet and clearly they have targeted Russia and excluded it from their elite club. Their last secret meeting included Russia on the agenda and unifying the US and Europe.
In order for these elites to continue to rule and exploit the world and the masses one of the key aspects of their control is dehumanizing their targets. Like the nazis stripped the Jews of their citizenship before they killing them, modern elites also dehumanize and degrade their targets.
In the modern world this dehumanization has taken many new and interesting forms. Things that Marx and Lenin would have never dreamed about when fighting the dehumanizing aspects of the industrial revolution on the Proletariat; a concept and member of the world community which modern day elites and media do not even admit exists.
Dehumanization is necessary when injustice is carried out on people and peoples. It is also a necessary ingredient for genocide and the justification of apartheid like policies and the maintenance of the ruling class in power.
The United States, a country founded on genocide and built by slaves, was the master in dehumanization. The indigenous people the committed genocide against they simply branded as animals, the slaves as sub-human. Those polices of genocide have never been annulled and that over-all thinking continues to this day and may have been the inspiration for nazi eugenics.
The dehumanization that occurs today is much more subtle but includes many different faces and means to keep the populace down and keep the elites in power. One of the most insidious is the restriction of healthcare to the rich and the privileged. Another is making education only accessible to the elites another is the continued existence of policies and unspoken rules that do not allow “minorities” to enter the upper ranks of the capitalist system.
While Anonymous activists fight for social justice and the beautiful things that make us human, the very mask they wear has a dehumanizing aspect on the world’s population. Why a white man and a English folk hero who is openly burned in effigy? This figure means nothing to blacks and other ethnic groups who also have legitimate complaints against persecution. Not only is the mask dehumanizing in and of itself but the treatment of hacktivists from Anonymous is also dehumanizing. The power elites make sure that the real hacktivists receive ungodly prison sentences while the rest are terrorized into hiding behind their masks. A necessity to escape a fate worse than death.
To the average consumer of media the mask immediately has an association with a person who was an enemy of the state and for most of the population, who does not take the time to find out who exactly Guy Fawkes was and what he did, when the Anon member receives the same fate as Fawkes there is little outcry.
The very act of hactivism is also dehumanizing but also works in the service of the elites. They know that a simple DDoS attack does nothing but it is portrayed as being something monstrous. This has led to many people who would be out on the streets taking part in real demonstrations and becoming involved in politics sitting at their computers thinking that they can make a real difference. This is good for the elites because it keeps their “opposition” fragmented, disorganized and weak and it keeps the real protestors off the streets and away from real demonstrations where they can be seen and thus be more effective.
While the goals of the Occupy Movement were also noble and honorable the elite managed to infiltrate and subvert the movement. The simplest tactics was to give them so many things to complain about that the movement imploded and fragmented under the weight of too many different causes.
This conglomeration of causes led to a dehumanizing aspect of the Occupiers, they were not people fighting for equality, for example, but just a bunch of social malcontents whose fates were no longer of any importance to the masses.
While we now can not live without it, the internet has had the most divisive and dehumanizing effect on the world’s population. People have literally forgotten many of the social skills and social interactions that kept the people together.
Computers have dumbed down the educational level and thus the knowledge of people worldwide with children now not even knowing how to write a normal letter and almost incapable of normal human interaction. This dumbed down populace glued to their screens and gadgets is very useful and beneficial for the 1%. They are easy to control and track and manipulate.
While technology is supposed to improve our lives and the lives of the people the most important advances; the gadgets and devices and cars and computers require constant funds to obtain them and literally turn many into slaves for their gadgets. Then there is the endless time that people spend interacting with their gadgets. Time that could be spent reading, interacting, discussing, building relationships and alliances, and again becoming involved in politics and fighting for social justice. For this reason for the 1% gadgets and technology are a wonderful diversion from the real issues.
The key tool in dehumanizing people is economic manipulation. That is why economic crisis, job uncertainty, inflation and low wages are beneficial for the 1%. If the populace is kept afraid, poor and beggarly they are easy to manipulate and control. Making the instruments to obtain economic freedom and independence, education, documents and the like are therefore things that should be almost unattainable.
The dehumanization and instilling in the populace the belief that they are economically worthless or at risk works wonderfully for the 1% to keep people obedient and pliant. This makes sure that workers will not protest or go against the rulers or the state out of simple fear of losing their jobs and their very livelihoods.
While discussing economic manipulation we cannot forget usury and the way that the populace is manipulated by interest rates, credits and mortgages into literally becoming slaves of the 1%. Think about this for a minute: why shouldn’t you as a human being have the right to have a home, just as Mr. 1% does? This is an aspect of Capitalism that maintains the status quo, and the bankers do more, they maintain the racial supremacy by only allowing certain race groups to obtain loans. Just ask any African American.
The constant introduction by those in power and the media in the west of non-issues has a dehumanizing aspect on all those who reasonable oppose such issues or did not even consider them an issue to begin with. Such as gay marriage. An abhorrent thought to most of the population and one, such as abortion, which is a strictly personal choice, thrown in the face of the populace to endlessly debate and argue about. Divide and conquer in a socio-political framework.
For the general population and the thinking and reasonable individual, such as you dear reader, the illegal prison at Guantanamo is like a lighthouse for dehumanization. There are hundreds of innocent men being tortured and held and we know they are being held illegally and the state has let us know their detention is illegal, yet they continue to do so. Why? this is a symbol for them. This is a triumph for them. This shows the populace and the world that they are supreme, they are above the law and you and I and anyone who they consider an enemy is not human.
The case of the poor young man who is forced to live in a windowless room in an Embassy in London is perhaps one of the most dehumanizing aspects that the 1% could have thought up. The world knows he did nothing wrong, they know he is innocent, they know his rights are being violated, but he is an enemy of the 1% and his continued predicament proves that they are immune from following the law. They are more human than this poor idealistic man. He is no longer a human according to them and like the men at Guantanamo and everyone they brand as an enemy, he is no longer human.
The people of the world are tired or being dehumanized, unless of course they are of the privileged class and enjoy all of the good things the world has to offer, but for the rest of the world, who also have the right to self-determination and a good life, they are growing tired. They are tried of the invasions, the illegal wars, the stealing of resources the destruction of countries, the economic enslavement, the illegality of those in power, the international lawlessness, the endless war on terror and beating of the drum of war. People want peace but where can they turn?
Before for those disillusioned with Capitalism there was the hope of building Socialism or a just Communist society, now there is just capitalism and endless war. The people need a new thinking, a new movement which will defend their rights to exist and to be humans. They need a movement and an idea that will lift all of them up and that idea is not the distraction of gay marriage or the endless war and demonization of other peoples. That idea is not endless war and the stealing of resources and the raping of the planet.
The world has a new Proletariat called the 99% and it must in some way unite and demand that it be treated fairly and justly and with the respect that it deserves. for the 99% are also people, with hopes and dreams and desires and wants, these human needs are not only for of those at the top.
The only solution, before it is too late for the world and for the peoples of the world who have been targeted for destruction and/or enslavement by illegal and lawless regimes then is the creation of n international body which has teeth and can tell certain states the international must be respected. That can stop certain states from invading others at will, executing anyone it wants extra-judicially and subverting and taking over any other country it so desires.
The international bodies that now exist are impotent in dealing with their illegality, hence new ones must be created. Ones with teeth who are unable to be influenced, subverted or bought off. But where and by whom? I may be wrong in my solution so then I ask you: what is yours?
Ukraine Part of US/NATO Expansion to Russia
Yugoslav FM Živadin Jovanović
Our interview took place in light of the 15 year anniversary of the beginning of NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro which occurred on March 24, 1999. FM Jovanović says that what we have seen in Serbia, Ukraine and scores of other countries is illegal under international law and the UN Charter. He also says the instruments that US/NATO use are wide and varied but include organizations such as USAID, the IMF, the World Bank and other supposedly “neutral” bodies. The Honorable Jovanović believes that Serbia should remain militarily neutral do more to expand cooperation with Russia, China, India and the BRICS countries as well as countries which never attach political or military conditions to economic, technological or financial cooperation.
Most thinking people in Europe and the world would have their own assessments of events in Ukraine. As far as I'm concerned I think it is a repetition of the colored revolutions, so called “color revolutions”. And some of the elements of the patterns that I have previously elaborated on are being clearly seen in developments in Ukraine.
But perhaps, I would like, first of all to say that; it is part of the Western strategy of expansion towards the East. It is indeed to my profound believe the part of strategy to reach Russian borders.
And well, they are abusing social, economic and other problems which partly resulted from their strategies and their policies of crediting or not crediting, policies implemented through IMF and World Bank, through European Banks and so on. Sometimes I believe that they make people hungry in order to finish their strategy. They are abusing social and economic problems for the strategic purposes.
I mentioned the American strategy to project the situation in nowadays Europe at the time when Roman Empire was at a peek of force and you can see this strategy having been expanded. I think perhaps the reason is that Russia is still not strong enough to resist and sometimes I think they are in a hurry to finish their expansion toward the East before Russia fully assumes its own capacities and its own objectives. They are really with itchy hands.
They want to show strength at the time when they are in a profound crisis and it is a crisis that is the deepest since the ‘30s of the last century.
They are abusing the national composition of the population of Ukraine, abusing the fact that part of the population is buying ideas of better life through the EU, through the agreement of association and stabilization and so on and so forth.
I would like to say, speaking about dangers, really you see how much money and energy is wasted on revision of history. Now this year we are marking 100 years since the beginning of the first world war, and there is a hyper production of false explanation of the real causes of the first world war. In Germany, Austria, France, Great Britain most of the books printed on the occasion of 100 years of the first world war accuse Serbia and Russia as being culprits of the first world war.
We now on a minor plan let me say that events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the destabilization of Bosnia and Herzegovina right now, was a reason for some European politicians, for the high international representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Valentine Inzko, to say: “Austria will dispose more military force in Bosnia. Austria will bring more policemen in Bosnia and will arrange a judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Nobody really understands that in terms of political strategy there are no differences between the EU and NATO, no differences between the EU and the US. Sometimes they spit at each other and sometimes they do nasty things to their partners, like spying on them, like listening and so on. But there is no difference in political strategy and the aims of the EU and NATO, between the EU and USA. All is coordinated, still showing that the strongest European power is the US.
So we see that in one hand the West is declaring that they support peaceful demonstrations and the right of people to express their democratic will and they are pumping million of dollars and even armaments, into opposition, into extremists who occupy (physically) institutions of Ukraine and Kiev and so on.
So this is an example where the West shows its cynicism and let's say immorality. Sometimes when we see what they do and what they talk, I ask myself what happened with the western civilization indeed? Can they be stable and progressive if they are abusing other nations, if they are so bluntly exploiting others and manipulating their own citizens, own allies and so on.
I said once: “If they don't know really where are the causes of their economic and financial crisis (of course they do know, but if they don't know) they should see in their immorality. Because you cannot play democracy inside and use only force outside your country.
I see. If, let's say in my opinion I'm correct, that NATO aggression 15 years ago against Yugoslavia was a turning point toward the globalization of interventionism...
I think that now we have reached the other turning point: this is the end of a unipolar world. And multi-polarity is not just an idea any longer, it is a reality, perhaps not in a full swing, not with a full force and not with full effects but we are witnessing the end of unipolar world relations and the beginning of a multi-polar world.
If the aggression in 1999 was towards domination and towards interventionism, towards totalitarian imperialism, then cases of reaching agreements about the nuclear energy of Iran, reaching some agreement on the Syrian conflict and now the events in Ukraine, are turning points towards multi-polarization which cannot be stopped.
And as far as NATO is concerned, NATO is fighting a lost war. Nobody can stop multi-polarization. And nobody can stop democratization which will be opened with full multi-polarization.
It is necessary to, let's say, do much more in the field of information (dissemination) that this knowledge of a few about what kind of world we live in today becomes the property of billions of the world’s population and the more we do in that direction, objectively informing the world community about these tectonic changes in world relations, I think the more secure our future will be. If we miss (the opportunity) to do so, if we miss doing something which must be done today, it might be really late.
I would like to say, speaking about dangers, really you see how much money and energy is wasted on revision of history. Now this year we are marking 100 years since the beginning of the first world war, and there is a hyper production of false explanation of the real causes of the first world war. In Germany, Austria, France, Great Britain most of the books printed on the occasion of 100 years of the first world war accuse Serbia and Russia as being culprits of the first world war.
We now on a minor plan let me say that events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the destabilization of Bosnia and Herzegovina right now, was a reason for some European politicians, for the high international representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Valentine Inzko, to say: “Austria will dispose more military force in Bosnia. Austria will bring more policemen in Bosnia and will arrange a judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
I really see that he himself may have not intention, but why Austria? Austria was occupying force in 1908, Austria occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1914, Austro-Hungaria – they started the first world war from Bosnia attacking Serbia. And now Inzko is advocating more Austrian soldiers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more policemen and so on. Is it the way to export democracy, to make Bosnia and Herzegovina a functional state, a ripe candidate for membership in NATO or the EU? Sometimes I think they are really wrong.
I think we have enough facts to analyze NATO strategy, we don't really have always to go back to history and to enter the risk of being accused of this or that theory.
What is sure: NATO adopted in 2010 in Lisbon a new strategy plan for the next 20 years, that means until 2020 and it proclaimed the right to globally intervene. At that summit the EU was represented, Russia also, I think president Medvedev was at that summit also,
but the European Union accepted NATO strategy in Europe as its own strategy. And we see equal strategy of NATO and EU when it comes to the globalization of interventionism, when it comes to expansion towards the East, when it comes to color revolutions and so on and so forth, even when it comes to constructing new anti-ballistic systems “so called” in so many countries in Europe. You know, it is not only Romania and Poland. It also Germany, it is even Spain and some other countries in Europe which accepted these anti-ballistic systems and they are preparing for something. We should be asking: what for?
We are seeing a revision of history and a revision of history, my friend, is just the first stage of the strategy of “revision of borders”. We should not be so naïve to say revision of history is a theoretic (or something like that) issue or problem. When somebody asks for a revision of let's say the Trianon Agreement from 1920, he is asking for changes of the borders of Hungary, Austria, or a changing of the borders of Serbia and so on and so forth.
So then we should be asking: Could a change of borders happen without wars? Are nations ready to agree with changes of the borders? I believe they are not ready and if they are not ready, what is next?
NATO is actually that machinery to rearrange, to redraw the borders in Europe. Should we disregard Brezhinsky's theory that Russia should be divided at least in three parts? Who is to divide? How to divide? Why to divide?
So, we see the strategy of NATO, which is actually defending the military industrial complex and the interests of corporate capital.
NATO leaders, especially American and the others, they are talking about spreading democracy, spreading human rights and so on and so forth and I'm curious how many people believe in this theory.
They actually are trying to put under their control the natural, economic and market resources of the planet to serve their interests, their greedy selfish interests. And this is all that NATO is for.
And having regard, that NATO is a military alliance to conquer other countries, to conquer resources and so on, I wonder if some countries of Europe should join NATO at all.
For example Serbia is pressed to join NATO. Every couple of months the highest officials of NATO send public messages: Serbia is welcomed! Serbia should know what to do! And so on. And actually they are inviting Serbia to submit official requests for membership in NATO.
It is my opinion that NATO is not a place for Serbia. NATO is a conquering organization, an imperialistic organization, an organization which aims to conquer other countries' and other peoples' resources to make other nations' lives miserable, and Serbia (on the other side) is a small European country, a peace loving country, which never has been linked with any imperial policies and so on.
Finally Serbia never was a member of any military alliance in its history. The longest period of peace Serbia lived through being neutral and being nonaligned. And finally to end: it is not to be neglected that NATO in 1999 during aggression they killed about 4,000 people of my country, they seriously wounded about 10,000, they destroyed civil infrastructure and civil economy at a value of $120 billion which was never recovered, nobody is even demanding or asking this to be done. And this is one additional reason why NATO cannot be a place for Serbia.
Serbia in my opinion, should remain militarily neutral and should conduct balanced foreign policy to remain open for cooperation with the EU, with the West in general, but on the basis of mutual interests, on the basis of respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty, on the basis of respect of independence and at the same time Serbia should do much more to expand cooperation with Russia first of all, then with China, then with India and with the BRICS countries in general, with all the countries who never advance any political strings to economic, technological or financial cooperation.
In my opinion this is good for the stability of Serbia, for the prosperity of Serbia and this is good for the stability of one “very unstable region” as the Balkans continue to be.
18 September 2012, 11:24
NATO: Secret Mission in Syria
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.
4 October 2012, 15:14
Georgian Elections Beginning of End for Saakashvili and Turkish-Syria Border Clash: Will NATO Interfere?
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.
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 of course outside of Kabul, the 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.
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.
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.
15 October 2012, 14:17
NATO Pushes Erdogan into a “Saakashvili”
In the grounding and confiscation of part of the cargo of a passenger jet flying from Moscow to Syria and the beating of passengers and crew, many say Turkey committed an illegal act of air-piracy. Has Ankara now decided to take on Moscow? Not likely, but things are not always as they seem, and the hand of NATO and the US are more than just discernable here.
Turkey’s forced grounding of a Syrian Air Airbus A320, with approximately 30 passengers on board has been called an act of air-piracy by the Syrian authorities and Russia has stated the search and seizure of part of the cargo were illegal. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the incident endangered the lives of Russian citizens aboard the plane. Lavrov has also reiterated that Moscow is still waiting for an official explanation from Turkey as to why it refused to allow Russian diplomats aboard the plane to meet with the passengers and crew.
For Turkey it is one thing that it continuously occupies Northern Iraq and that it has decided to launch attacks into Syria but it is a whole nother game when it decides to openly take on the Russian Federation, which like it or not is still a powerful superpower and one which Turkey depends on for everything from gas to tourism.
Russia is also not indifferent to Turkey and has worked with Turkey for years on a number of fronts including plans for a section of the South Stream gas pipeline and plans to assist Turkey in building its first nuclear power plant, both very important projects for both countries and not likely to be affected by this single incident, according to statements by officials on both sides, including Foreign Minister Lavrov.
What is troubling is that Turkey would so openly and blatantly commit such a provocative act right in front of the eyes of the entire world as if daring Russia to react and seeming to challenge the authority of the superpower. What one has to wonder is what has emboldened Turkey to such a point. Could it be that Turkey was pushed into doing so by NATO to test the waters for the invasion of Syria that they so crave? That is one possibility.
Another possibility as to the reasons behind the attack which the world’s press has not looked at but which to me seems quite possible is that Turkey and NATO were after the technology on the plane. It is critical to recall that NATO believes it was Russian Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air defensive missile technology which uses the latest cutting edge system of phased-array radar for both target acquisition and tracking, which was responsible for taking out the Turkish American-made F-4 Phantom on June 22nd.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated and media outlets are reporting that there was dual-use radar equipment parts on the plane, all shipped legally and not in any violation of current international conventions. We can postulate, that perhaps the Turkish side and their NATO and CIA intelligence contacts believed that these parts were for air-defense systems being used or upgraded by Syria. This would explain why Turkey took such a risk.
If NATO and the US are preparing for an invasion of Syria, then one of the first things they need to knock out are the country’s radar and air-defense systems. If the F-4 Phantom was a test run, then Western technology proved to be impotent in evading Syrian air defenses and Russian technology.
The fact that Turkey so openly and blatantly committed such an illegal act, points to the fact that there are other hands behind this than what we are all privy to and as we know NATO and the US are for the most part calling all the shots in Turkey. Shall we once again recall Obama and his baseball bat?
Underlining the illegality of Turkey’s actions and the fact that they knew they were acting illegally are several events that occurred on the plane and several facts surrounding the incident. 1: the crew and passengers were beaten, 2: the Turkish side attempted to force the passengers and crew to sign documents saying the plane made an emergency landing, 3: the documents did not mention that the military aircraft were used to ground the plane and the crew and passengers were ordered not to mention them, 4: Russian diplomats were not allowed onto the plane to provide assistance to Russian citizens and 5: the plane was released without part of the cargo on board, which amounts to an act of air-piracy and theft as the parts were being shipped legally and were properly documented.
Depending on what exactly was on board it might take days to weeks for the parts to be copied, studied or tampered with depending on what the goal of the operation is, and have no doubt this was an “operation”. Everything from Erdogan’s statements about “intelligence”, to military personal who beat passengers, to military air-craft being used to force the Airbus A320 passenger jet to the ground, to the already prepared witness statements, point to a carefully planned operation.
Logic tells us that it is highly-unlikely that Turkey, independently, would take on Russia. Turkey in this case is clearly being manipulated and used by the US and NATO, both now and as the fall-guy for the upcoming invasion of Syria. We should recall that arms, mercenaries and terrorists are being spring-boarded into Syria from Turkish bases, and even the mortar that recently killed the Turkish citizens on the border allowing Turkey to begin shelling inside Syrian territory was NATO issue.
Obama and his baseball bat made it clear to the world who is pulling the strings in Turkey, and like in Georgia, the West’s military intentions for the region are clear. Turkey, like Georgia, has become emboldened and reckless in its bid to please its western “partners”, maybe it is time for the Turkish opposition and the Turkish people to step up to the plate and decide they will not be the fall-guy and the patsy in another resource invasion by Washington? Or maybe not.
The opinions and views expressed here are the writer’s own and based on current available data. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
2 October 2012, 18:48
Saakashvili: Loss of a Geopolitical Chess “Queen”
The loss of Mihail Saakashvili’s party in parliamentary elections in Georgia may spell the end for his regime and a return to democracy in Georgia. It may also spell the warming of relations, soured by Saakashvili, between Russia and Georgia. For the West the elections may be the first step towards his removal from power, the loss of a “Queen”, in their game of geopolitical chess.
Suffering an unexpected blow at the polls in the parliamentary elections, tie-eating Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in the middle of the night conceded defeat, opening the trap-door beneath his own feet and paving the way for real change and real democracy in Georgia, but pundits and experts are already saying that he will undoubtedly find a reason to dissolve parliament and call for new elections.
The blow to the plutocratic despot is one that the West cannot allow to stand as they have too much to lose and have invested far too much to quietly just go away, lose their influence and simply mothball all of their plans for the integration of Georgia into the Western Sphere.
It is no secret that Saakashvili is the “West’s man in the Caucuses” the darling of Hillary Clinton and Obama’s US State Department, NATO headquarters and the Pentagon and the intelligence services of the UK and the US. He is yet another despotic dictator that has murdered, oppressed, strangled, tortured and subjugated his people with the support of the West in exchange for advancing their geopolitical agenda in yet another region far removed from their own borders yet where they want control.
has already gone into the hypocrisy of the West with regard to Saakashvili, so I won’t go into that right now. Suffice it to say that the hypocrisy when it comes to Saakashvili is total and all encompassing and characterizes the total anti-Russia hysteria by the West, something they need to propagate to continue to have support for their intrusions on the sovereignty of the countries in the region and to justify their aggressive military build-up and the expansion of NATO into the Caucuses.
What the complete loss of power of the Saakashvili regime will mean for the West and for Saakashvili himself is hard to predict exactly, the opposition has shown leniency toward him, so it is possible he may remain in some sort of position of power for the mid-term. However what few have focused on is that his loss may open the door to prosecution and punishment for the crimes he has committed against his own people and against innocent civilians.
These crimes include the recent revelations that his “security” apparatus was responsible for torturing and illegally detaining people opposed to his regime and a plethora of charges that could be brought in relation to how his regime has stifled dissent and cracked down on anyone opposed to his regime. But that would only be the start, there are those who have accused Saakashvili of crimes that could be tantamount to treason for selling out his country to the interests of the West, although prosecution for such a crime is unlikely, that would be one possibility which would end in his execution.
The biggest worry for Saakashvili and his Western paymasters right now should be whether Saakashvili will end up having to face the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. According to an article regarding a , back in October of 2009, citing Interfax, Nestan Kirtadze, international secretary of Georgia's Labor Party concluded that:
“The commission accused Saakashvili of war crimes. Namely, of unleashing active hostilities, of a massive, wide-scale military operation in the South Ossetian capital Tskhinval and the use of prohibited types of weapons, of shelling and destroying nonmilitary facilities, and of attacking military personnel from the peacekeeping mission that was mandated by the United Nations.”
As there is no statute of limitations on war crimes Saakashvili has a lot to worry about and had better stock up on ties.
The winners of the parliamentary elections have said that they will normalize relations with Russia, with the West screaming indignantly about “Russian Influence” as they once again conveniently ignore their own attempts at influencing the country.
As we might recall Georgia shares almost half of her borders with Russia and has classically fallen into Russia’s sphere of influence. We should also remember that that until Saakashvili came to power Russia and Georgia shared a rich and proud history and very close ties and good relations in trade, economic and other cooperation, education and more. This was beneficial for the peoples of both countries.
Saakashvili was one of the crowning jewels in NATO and the West’s consolidation of power and control after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Who would have ever thought that the country that gave the world and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Joseph Stalin would become a pawn of Western expansionism?
The fall of Saakashvili would mean many things for many people, for one, the tens of thousands of refugees from Georgia that have fled to Europe and other countries could finally return home. It would also mean the utter failure of Hillary Clinton and the West’s plans at geopolitical domination in Russia’s backyard, a nice retirement present and the crowning failure of her diplomatic career.
Regardless of all my musings it is too early to count our chickens. Saakashvili is still in power and will do everything possible, including killing his own people, to stay in power. We will probably see attempts to dissolve parliament, call for a recount of the vote, which he will win, and a massive crack down on the Georgian opposition. Saakashvili has too much to lose to quietly acquiesce and has shown he has no qualms about taking his country down into the abyss with him.
The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at email@example.com.
13 September 2012, 21:41
Benghazi: Putin Speaks Out, Romney Out of Touch, NATO Gears Up for Next Aggressive War
for Next Aggressive War
The details about the events leading up to and surrounding the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi continue to come in as the world’s press tries to make sense of it all. Details are coming in that the film, which is reported to have sparked the violence, may have been a carefully planned hoax. As we cannot support the desecration of the Orthodox Faith neither can we support the desecration of the Muslim Faith, but above all we cannot support the killing of innocent individuals.
Speaking to reporters in Sochi Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out against the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi Libya: “We condemn this crime and offer our condolences to the victims' families. The safety of diplomats is protected by international conventions and if someone fails to recognize this, it means that they put themselves outside the framework of the law and outside the framework of modern civilization" President Putin said.
He also said that: "The religious feelings of people of all beliefs must be ‘handled very carefully’ and government reactions to religious provocation must be ‘tough and timely,’ otherwise the people who feel offended will take matters into their own hands to defend their interests and views.”
According to RIA-Novosti President Putin also used the opportunity to reiterate his argument that the West should not support popular uprisings against dictatorships in the Middle East because this could have unpredictable and hazardous consequences.
“We do not support any armed groups that attempt to resolve internal political problems by violent means.” Putin said. He added: “We do not understand these people’s final goals, and we are always worried about the possibility that if we support these armed groups, we could ultimately find ourselves in a deadlock situation. We fear that the region could fall into chaos and that is exactly what’s happening.”
Details about the film that led up to the events in Benghazi are becoming murkier and murkier. With investigative journalists all over the world discovering new details by the hour, the entire event looks like it may have all been secretly planned and orchestrated from beginning to end.
The first reports about what set off the events were of a two-hour film called "Innocence of Muslims" which was produced directed and written by one Sam Bacile, reportedly a California real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. Now things have changed, starting with the identity of the maker of the film, there are reports that nobody with such a name really exists, and there are reports from various sources that say he is not even Jewish and the whole Jewish angle was a provocation. Apparently what we do know is that the individual using the name Sam Bacile is an Egyptian, who speaks Arabic and English.
According to Yigal Palmor an official spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, speaking to the New York Times: "Nobody knows who he is, he is totally unknown in filmmaking circles in Israel, and anything he did: he is not doing it for Israel, or with Israel, or through Israel in any way." He also called the film’s maker "a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot."
According to the Guardian many of the actors in the so-called “film” were tricked and lied to into thinking they were filming a simple desert saga and that much of the dialogue was dubbed in later. There is also doubt that a two hour film actually does exist and speculation that the entire work consists of only the trailer that has been posted on the internet. It appears that the whole thing may have been a hoax.
Hoax or not the results are real and blood has been shed and the Muslim world has once again been thrown into even more upheaval as if it really needed anymore.
The United States, which never charged anyone with carrying out 9-11, has reported that they already know that al-Qaeda was behind the attack. This is disturbing because the United States is reportedly using and supporting al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria and many other locations as they did in Libya when the US back-insurgents killed Muammar Gaddafi.
Apparently those who killed Ambassador Stevens knew of a US safe-house and attacked that as well, suggesting inside information which may have had to do with Steven’s reported task of liaising with insurgents, terrorist groups and possibly al-Qaeda operatives during the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. We should recall that Benghazi was the “base of operations” if you will in the invasion and overthrow of Libya. A fact which may have led to the US’ false sense of security in the city.
US Secretary of State Clinton was disbelieving saying she asked herself "how could this happen in a country we helped liberate and in a city we helped to save from destruction." A far cry from her now infamous “We came, we saw, he died!” comment on US television regarding the death of Muammar Gaddafi.
One of the groups being blamed, Ansar al Sharia – meaning Supporters of Islamic Law - which reportedly has ties to al-Qaeda, denies responsibility in the attack. Another group, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is also suspected in the attack.
The fact that Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation, and was not shot, executed or decapitated suggests that the death may have been accidental but nevertheless this has had no influence on the US response.
The world wide reaction to the killing of Stevens is mixed and surprising for many. The solidarity with the US that was evident after 9-11 is long gone. Many blogs, social networking sites and websites are seeing an increase in the number of people who are against US policy and see this as a justified response to the brutal murder of Gaddafi and the continuing wars and meddling by the US in the Muslim world.
Many in Libya and Egypt are extremely displeased with the “democracy” they were promised after the fall of their leaders, as are many in the Arab Spring countries, where Islamic Fundamentalism is beginning to take a stronger hold over society as living and societal conditions continue to worsen.
The rioting and protests in Egypt over the film have died down but are continuing and there are fears that the anger and the outcry will spread throughout the Muslim World.
Official Washington has attempted to distance itself from the “film” which triggered the event and even with “Pastor” Terry Jones and his anti-Islamic hate speech, reaching the point that even General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones and asked him to withdraw his support for the film. Jones and his provocative Quran burning stunts have already been responsible for scores of deaths and riots, including the deaths of US servicemen in Afghanistan.
Official Moscow and the Russian Foreign Ministry support the fight against any kind of terrorism and have stated that this is a sign that the US and Moscow need to work closer in the fight against terrorism. Russia in no stranger to terrorism and the FSB and Russian Security Services have been extremely effective in preventing and thwarting hundreds of terrorist attacks by many of the same groups the US is fighting against.
According to NATO expert Rick Rozoff the “Alliance” is deploying two Aegis class destroyers off the coast of Libya as well as having already dispatched Marines to Benghazi and elsewhere in the nation. This includes the guided missile warship USS Laboon and the USS McFaul both equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
He wrote on his Stop NATO site that eight American Marines were flown into Benghazi by helicopter the day after the attack on the U.S. mission, with two of them being killed and two wounded in a fierce mortar attack on the building. Rozoff also wrote that the U.S. has deployed 50 members of the elite U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Libya.
Mr. Rozoff also wrote that: “… with NATO's military operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, one armed conflict inevitable gives way to another and the Western military bloc continues to execute plans to expand into a global military strike force.”
American politicians have for the most part been neutral towards the current administration and have refrained from placing blame or pointing the finger, most that is except Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, who attempted to misconstrue statements made by the US Embassy in Cairo and gain political mileage from the event.
The statement in Cairo was released before the events and read read: "The embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
Romney decided to take the statement out of context and say that the entire Obama Administration and the US Government were attempting to appease the terrorists and sympathize with them, recall the statement was released before the attacks in both Egypt and Benghazi.
Romney’s Tuesday night statement read: “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Many Republicans distanced themselves from the statement as it was an outright lie.
The Guardian quoted “a very senior Republican foreign policy hand" as saying “They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it's just completely blown up, the statement was an ‘utter disaster’".
12 September 2012, 20:30
US Ambassador Killed in Libya. Pastor Terry Jones to Blame?
A US film ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed has caused extreme backlash all over the Muslim world including the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. The largest attack has occurred in Egypt but the backlash from the film is still ongoing. Official Washington does not support the message in film and has closed its missions in Libya.
On Tuesday night the US Embassy in Benghazi Libya was attacked by angry Islamists apparently set off by a film aired in America which ridiculed the Islamic Prophet Mohammed.
According to reports during the attack an embassy employee was killed and Stevens was killed along with three other Americans when the vehicle he was riding in was attacked as it neared the embassy compound.
The attack on the embassy came shortly after an attack on the US Embassy in Cairo, where demonstrators tore down an American flag in protesting a two-hour film called "Innocence of Muslims" which was produced directed and written by one Sam Bacile, reportedly a California real estate developer and an Israeli Jew.
According to reports the film apparently, openly and with ridicule, depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a false prophet and a paedophile and shows him having sex and ordering massacres. According to media reports Mr. Bacile is unapologetic, blaming the deaths at the embassy on lax security and stating that “Islam is a cancer, period”!
The film is being promoted by Quran burning “pastor” Terry Jones and one Morris Sadek who is promoting the film on US television stations. Terry Jones, as we may recall is still actively preaching religious intolerance and inciting hatred and already has the blood of Americans and others on his hands after causing massive riots all over the Muslim world with his Quran burning stunts.
Officially the US states that they are against these kinds of provocations and that they support all religions, yet nothing has been done to these individuals who are causing real blood to be shed all over the world. Even with the bloodshed and backlash on US soldiers and US personnel overseas for some reason the US Government has not seen fit to stop these individuals from inciting religious hatred.
Many in the Muslim world and people in general see this inaction by the US Government as a sign that Official Washington supports the position of extremist anti-Muslim fanatics.
The light sentences and seemingly condoning attitude that has been taken to US and NATO Forces who repeatedly desecrate and have committed war crimes against Muslims does not help the US image in the Muslim world as well.
Another area which is causing backlash against the US is the failure of the Arab Spring and the US “missions” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The world is tired of the drone attacks, the killing of thousands of civilians, the assassinations, the torture and the military expansion of the US.
Our condolences go out to the families of those killed in the attacks on the embassy in Benghazi, but this is yet another sign that the US needs to change its policies.
In Libya the double standards and the lack of planning by the US are more to blame than the insurgents who supported the US in their war to kill Gaddafi and who then turned their weapons on those who brought them to power.
Under Gaddafi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt, such attacks on US Embassies would never have happened. The US’ lack of foresight and advance planning in unleashing the Arab Spring and effecting regime changes all over the region is going to have a continuing and growing backlash and instead of subjugating the people and controlling the countries in question, as the US has seen in Afghanistan, the opposite will be the case.
Again we have to condemn the violence of those who see violence as the only way to fight back, and we regret the death of yet the continued meddling by the US in countries all over the world is going to continue to cause backlash and will continue to escalate.
As many experts agree, including US based expert Alon Ben Meir, the failure of the Arab Spring was that the US mistakenly thought they could bring about “democracy” overnight in countries where the people had no idea what it means.
As the peoples of the Arab Spring countries and Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya begin to see their lives become worse, their countries continue to fall apart and the “promise” of democracy to have been a lie, they will turn to the Islamists, and if provocations continue against Muslims, the attacks will grow worse.
Maybe it is time the US thought about peace and stopped trying to dictate to the world what it should do, who it should befriend, what religion to believe in and how to run their countries?
The Voice of Russia regrets the killing in Benghazi of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and does not condone such violence.
5 September 2012, 12:02
NATO Holds Secret Meeting Approving Syrian Operation
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.
22 July 2012, 22:59
US Forcing Former Soviet Allies into NATO
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 www.globalresearch.ca
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.
19 July 2012, 15:16
Ukraine Forced into NATO
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.
US Throws Book at Anti-NATO Protesters
US Throws Book at Anti-NATO Protesters
Interview with Kris Hermes, an official spokesperson and legal worker for the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, indictments against 'NATO 3' protesters.
Hello. This is John Robles. I am speaking with Kris Hermes, an official spokesperson and legal worker for the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, which is defending the NATO 3.
Why were you initially denied the indictments by the prosecutors?
We were told by the state’s attorney that we would not be able to see indictments until July 2nd, when the defendants will be arraigned.
Is that normal? You are not going to have any time to prepare.
This is a little time to prepare. Typically conversations happen between the defense attorneys and the state’s attorney for whatever reason. The city has refused to talk with us about this case and so we found out about the indictments just by going to the circuit court clerk’s office. They were apparently made public in the clerk’s office and we happened to be there reviewing other cases and noticed they were there and we were able to obtain them. Why they felt that they didn’t want to let us know that the indictments were public, we are not really sure, why they wouldn’t provide them when we asked at the last court hearing, we are not really sure.
Very strange. So, what is unusual about the indictments?
There are multiple counts of possession of the incendiary device. In addition to the three charges, the three original charges, which are material support for terrorism, possession of incendiary device and conspiracy to commit terrorism, several other charges were tacked on as a result of the indictment including attempted arson, solicitation to commit arson, conspiracy to commit arson and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon. Essentially each defendant now has 11 charges. There is not necessarily anything unusual about the indictment other than the fact that these excessive charges smack of further sensationalism by the state’s attorney to make this a show trial, to create hysteria around these sensational charges and we still have not seen any evidence. We’ve not been given anything other than a proffer, which alleges all sorts of crimes that they’ve provided us no evidence of.
Can you explain to our listeners what’s a difference between for example a grand jury indictment and just charges?
Sure. The state’s attorney had the option when the indictment was issued of putting on evidence and witnesses in a preliminary hearing that is commonly done in criminal cases. But that would involve the defense attorneys, it would involve the ability to review evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. The state’s attorney didn’t want to do that, so the other option was to call a grand jury in secret without the involvement of the Defense Council and get an indictment that way, and that’s what they did.
Is that going to help the defense out later in the case?
I think a preliminary hearing would have been more helpful to the defense. The fact that they issued an indictment in secret doesn’t really help us at this point and I am not sure it will help us in the future. Everything is shrouded in secrecy, the state’s attorney is unwilling to divulge any information so we are pretty hamstrung at the moment in terms of being able to effectively defend our client.
Would you characterize this as some sort of political prosecution?
It’s definitely a political prosecution: the first words out of the state’s attorney’s mouth at the bond hearing were that these were anarchists, part of so-called “Black Block” and their attempt to politicize their crimes is very evident. There is no evidence that we’ve seen that these people hold any particular political belief but certainly there is no crime against having anarchists beliefs or engaging in activism in your community. These young men should not be put on trial for their political beliefs and if that’s what the state’s attorney is doing, this case is going to evaporate quickly.
By putting that staff out in the press before the bond hearing, for example, are there grounds for dismissing the case entirely?
Certainly, it smacks of politicization and it also indicates that the city was intent on discrediting not only these activists but the Occupy Chicago movement or the Occupy Wall Street movement, even greater than that. There have been other incidents around the country, in which the state has tried to discredit the Occupy movement, but also these arrests happened in advance of the NATO protests so they were in a sense trying to discourage folks from coming out and protesting in the streets.
Do you think that was successful?
I think they did achieve short term objective which was to create hysteria, spread fear and intimidation and discourage people from coming out to protest and it’s difficult to say how many people would have come out to protest if these arrests had not been made and this PR campaign and had not been sort of put forward by the state’s attorney, but we believe that some amount of people have been discouraged and that’s a chilling of people’s First Amendment rights.
Do you think if these charges are successful, that other states will attempt to charge other Occupy activists with similar charges?
There is depending case in Cleveland, in which infiltrators were involved and they are trying to also discredit the Occupy Wall Street movement there by attaching accusations of bomb-making to activists in Cleveland. In each contemporary example of people being arrested for explosives-related crimes, they’ve all involved infiltrators, police informants or undercover cops, and there is real serious question as to whether or not provocation and entrapment was at the root of it.
Do you see the stripping of civil liberties and rights in the US for security reasons continuing?
The Pfizer rules from what I understand have just been renewed, which gives the government the right to tap phone lines without a warrant, without probable cause and I think they were definitely not moving in the right direction in terms of maintaining people’s civil liberties. We have a long way to go to reverse course and return a lot of the rights that we had pre-9/11 that have been eroded over the years through executive order and attorney general guidelines.
Do you think that’s going to happen?
I don’t think it’s going to happen without very concerted effort on the part of civil libertarians and activists that are trying to preserve their constitutional rights.
You were listening to an interview with Kris Hermes, an official spokesperson and legal worker for the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.
14 May 2012, 17:33
OSCE to Monitor Anti-NATO Protests in Chicago
OSCE to Monitor Anti-NATO Protests in Chicago
Interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to GlobalResearch.ca. 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.
23 May 2012, 11:28
Georgia/Baltic Countries: Winners at NATO Summit
Georgia/Baltic Countries: Winners at NATO Summit
At the NATO summit in Chicago, the Baltic countries proved one of the most successful for NATO in its fundraising drive, with the countries announcing that they are going to increase their contributions to NATO’s coffers.
At the NATO summit in Chicago, the Baltic countries proved one of the most successful for NATO in its fundraising drive, with the countries announcing that they are going to increase their contributions to NATO’s coffers. Of course all of these billions of dollars are not being given for nothing, which is strange because in reality they are selling their souls to NATO and actually paying the devil for the “privilege”.
In a speech at the North Atlantic Council Barack Obama spoke in golden tones about NATO’s Air Policing Mission over the Baltic States and at the summit it was called “…one of the most successful examples of NATO solidarity.” NATO solidarity? We are talking about an organization designed and born against the Soviet Union. What exactly are they so in solidarity over? As they have no real enemy, then what imagined ones? Or just advancing US interests? What does policing the airspace over the Baltic countries have to do with “solidarity”?
The NATO summit actually did some real work as a total of 13 documents were given the green light. These include the Chicago Summit Declaration and a ten year plan of enhancements called NATO Forces 2020. The members agreed to implement what they are calling “smart defense” and “connected forces” initiatives aimed at improving the use of joint military, financial and technological assets. Under the “smart defense” program come missile defense systems and the Air Policing mission over the Baltics.
The mission over the Baltics is important for Lithuania and the president of the country fawned repeatedly over NATO. According to the press service of the Lithuanian president the country had “…achieved and reaffirmed all the goals it sought to ensure the security of their country and people.” Again the question pops up, against whom? She also said, Lithuania’s membership in NATO is now real and full-fledged and that they have security guarantees that they will be protected and defended.
Georgia is another story, bending over backward and fawning over NATO. Fawning NATO spokes puppet Mihail Sakashvili could not have been more over the top in his almost groveling manner before NATO. He was ever so grateful and vocal at the mere fact that his country was put in the context of being one of three Balkan NATO aspirant countries. He said it was progress and that the aspirant countries would, as everybody knows, join NATO. Despite no real progress he said that Georgia, “…had done its homework did not like to look like the best student in the class that still could not make it to the next year... When will we graduate? We don't know yet," Saakashvili said. He fawned over Georgia being put “…into the basket of Balkan countries,” and that it was a "…geographical coup" putting Georgia into the west.
In the summit declaration, the NATO leaders continue to state that Georgia will join NATO but again no one knows when. Regardless of the fact that he is being led around with a carrot, Sakashvili continued to fawn and even lashed out at the new anti-NATO, Occupy demonstrators calling them "relics of the past" and saying that the cold war relic that is NATO was, “…as relevant now as never before.” The disconnect was not only evident from the Georgian side, NATO reciprocated.
The NATO declaration says that NATO supports reforms in Georgia, in all spheres but as an almost admission to Sakashvili’s status as what many call a dictator, the alliance stresses, “… the importance of conducting free, fair, and inclusive elections in 2012 and 2013.” The declaration also mentions Georgia’s “full compliance” with the 2008 ceasefire agreement and Tbilisi’s non-use of force promise, and takes a stab at Russia, calling “…on Russia to reciprocate.” NATO repeated, as they did during the 2009 and 2010 summits, that Russia should; “…reverse its recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”
The declaration states that NATO is grateful to Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia, which “aspire to NATO membership.” “…for the important contributions they are making to NATO-led operations, and which demonstrate their commitment to our shared security goals,” unquote. Again the document mentions abstract ambiguous “shared goals”.
For those of you who have been dozing, this may be clearer by provocative statements preparing the way for increased hostilities with Russia, saying that for the following statement attributed to the “President” ; “The Summit repeats NATO’s focus on the military build-up in Kaliningrad and is prepared to strengthen cooperation with Russia, but that Russia is contradicting its declared aspiration to develop a strategic partnership with NATO.”
Little talk of Iran and who the global missile shield is being built against, “wink-wink”. No mention that Russia has been requesting written guarantees that the intensive militarization along its own borders by NATO is not against its own deterrent. No mention that the US has refused to provide any written guarantees whatsoever, “trust us” wink-wink. No mention that Georgia invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian citizens and peacekeepers, no mention of anything of substance really, more of a reaffirming-back-patting-feel-good-fundraiser. So get out those checkbooks and keep paying for the war and death that is NATO, after all they keep shoving their missiles in Russia’s face and keep protecting you against the phantom menaces that they keep telling you are threatening you. What else can they do as they try to stay relevant?
Have a nice day.
22 May 2012, 16:02
NATO: Blood Money, War, Global Domination
NATO: Blood Money, War, Global Domination
$37 million for public relations for a 2 day event, and that is the amount that has been made public. When this amount of money is being spent one has to ask oneself some serious questions.
$37 million for public relations for a 2 day event, and that is the amount that has been made public. When this amount of money is being spent one has to ask oneself some serious questions. This amount of money is not spent for public relations when you have something positive to say or sell and in this case that completely applies.
What they are in fact trying to sell to the American public is an organization that is; no matter how you package it, a war machine. It is not one that can be called a very successful one either, nor is it one that is needed or particularly wanted by the American people. If the over-taxed American people realized that of the almost 50% of their salaries that they are paying for taxes, a large part of it and the over 65 years of debt that is being passed along to their children, is also being spent not only to fund all of the American war machines and the US military adventures all over the world, but it is also being used to provide approximately 79% of the funding for an organization that should have been disbanded over 20 years ago and one that it not even really wanted by the people it is supposed to be protecting Europe.
With the failure of Afghanistan, possibly the fact that more and more people are becoming aware of NATO’s role in supporting the illegal black market organ trade and drug traffickers in the former Yugoslavia, the ongoing provocations against the Russian Federation, a missile defense shield against an enemy (Iran) that no one really believes is a threat, waning public support for the endless “War on Terror” a euphemism for the global endless killing of members of the Islamic faith (and anyone else for that matter) who are against US interests, and an economic crisis that sees no end in sight soon; Europeans and their countries are beginning to cut their funding for NATO.
$37 million, in the lead up to the NATO Summit in Chicago this is the amount that corporate sponsors and they are many, have publicly admitted to having gathered to promote NATO to the American public. Who are these sponsors? Well the list is long but here are a few of the smaller ones and you may be surprised: Chicago Young Republicans, the National Strategy Forum, the Arab-American Business Association, the Turkish-American Chamber of Commerce, Human Rights Watch (yes, the same one), the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the Chicago Shakespeare Theater (What!?!). The big corporate sponsors include: General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, the Atlantic Richfield Company, Xerox, IBM, Security Pacific Bank and State Farm Insurance.
With an annual budget of what some sources calculate at being close to half a trillion dollars ($500 billion) from the US side approximately $400 billion, this is a hugely profitable cash cow for all of these companies, never mind that their business is death and destruction… That is also good because there are slew of American companies waiting in the shadows to make billions on reconstruction and lucrative business deals on the new “democracies’ they install.
And that it what it is all about after all promoting the US position. Advancing US global domination, securing unfettered access to the world’s oil and natural resources, resources needed desperately by a country that consumes more than 48% of the world’s total.
In a recent statement the Honorable R. Nicholas Burns former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, among his other titles, said the following; “NATO is facing new challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing global economic, political, and security environment.” and quoted former U.S. Secretary of D0efense Robert Gates who in 2011 warned of “a dim, if not dismal future” for the transatlantic alliance, unless member states strengthened their cohesion, coordination, and commitments.
What are the new challenges that he is talking about? Well in reality, the organization is truly irrelevant as it was originally set up. The changing economics he speaks about are what we have talked about already, Europe is in a crisis and the funding for NATO is not what it used to be, although after 9-11 it has risen to above cold war levels. Europe does not want to pay for an organization that is clearly failing in Afghanistan and other theaters.
Politically speaking NATO should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved because that was its chief rival and as for security this is also relevant. The new challenges and opportunities exist more for the US than for NATO as the US seeks to increasingly use NATO to advance its interests, in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arctic, Africa, the former Soviet area and now, if one follows NATO with even a passing interest, it is clear the US wishes to use its proxy to advance its interests in the Asia – Pacific region and in fact anywhere elsewhere there is oil in particular or other resources.
NATO plans to expand globally and is well on its way to doing so. It vision of a single world military organization able to dominate any country or region in the world and strike any target in the world within minutes is close to becoming a reality. NATO does not answer to the UN nor does it answer to any international organization. It is not interested in peace or equilibrium in the world. NATO exists to promote and advance the wishes, the policies, the politics, the interests and the position of a the US and its subservient allies. It is a US tool of terror, death and destruction and it must be stopped.
Have a nice day!
20 May 2012, 16:33
NATO and US vs Protestors
NATO and US vs Protestors
Steadfastly continuing the (perhaps not so) new American tradition of stripping the American people of their freedoms, oppressing them
Steadfastly continuing the (perhaps not so) new American tradition of stripping the American people of their freedoms, oppressing them and if need be eliminating them altogether, all in the name of safety, security and in order to save them from the evil terrorists hiding behind every tree, those evil Russians, the Iranians and North Korea, Chicago prepares to host a showcase summit for the world’s top war machine, an organization that will soon completely dominate and control the entire planet if the architects behind it have their way.
Do the people in Chicago want the summit? No, but it doesn’t really matter, those in power want it. In the vernacular we will call them the 1%, they are also known as the elites, the globalists and what have you. It doesn’t really matter what you call them, they are those born to privilege who have little value for human life (other than their own of course) and who expertly manipulate and feed off the pain, grief, work, blood, sweat and tears of the common people.
Shamelessly and blood thirstingly profiteering from the death and destruction of what has become non-stop global war, from the illegal narcotics trade that decimates the poor and what they consider to be undesirable segments of the world’s population, and even from the illegal black market trade in human organs, no matter what stage of the bloody circle you focus on they (the 1%) are there, to benefit and profit. Which is why, in a nutshell, the 99% of us must protest, and stand up, before it is my eye they want, or your kidney, or your baby sister’s liver or they decide we are completely expendable without even bothering to harvest our organs.
Lest I digress, let’s look at what they (the 1%) have planned for the peaceful demonstrators who already have to must up huge levels of bravery, and in the words of one Occupier I spoke to; “…be ready to sacrifice my body… for the cause.” But before we do let’s look at who all of these preparations are being planned for.
In case you have been on a deserted island, in another galaxy, or in a country that just doesn’t give a toot about what is going on in the US and know nothing about the Occupy movement let me fill you in real quick.
For decades the US has been on the verge of a complete and total societal breakdown. It had been repressed minorities, immigrants and the poor who have classically gotten poorer as the rich have gotten richer. These segments of the US population were growing more and more difficult to control and events were needed to crack down. 9-11 was that event. Then the election of a black president kept most of the minorities placated. So the elites, once again emboldened decided to decimate the middle class, classically made up of white Americans, and this gave birth to the Occupy Movement.
The Occupiers are not the radical Black Panthers or the hippies of the ‘60s. They are peaceful, educated and even a little nerdy and are becoming more and more organized and focused. Their addition to number of discontent masses is dangerous for the elites. Together they may now have the power to cut off the profiteering feeding frenzy that the elites have been on for decades.
How will these educated, discontent, and peaceful groups be dealt with? Well, with what the US Government does best, maximum force and violence and the stripping of civil and human rights! Sorry for the rhetorical question. How dare them protest the killing by the elites and their world domination! There will also be an unprecedented campaign of intimidation and “fear mongering” in order to keep the number of protesters to a minimum.
In a preview, the Chicago Police Department, one of the few if not the only police department in the US and perhaps the world as well, to have had to call a moratorium on torture, has began arresting these malcontents. Yesiree Bob, they must be stopped.
So far more than 20 people have been arrested with 3 people who were stopped and intimidated by police being made examples of. Last week Jared Chase, Brent Beterly, and Brian Jacob Church who arrived in Chicago from Florida, were surrounded by several police squad cars and detained for no apparent reason. They were questioned about why they were in Chicago and what they planned to do during the NATO summit. They happened to record the encounter and posted an edited version on YouTube and then the entire video on the internet.
On Wednesday night police raided several homes and apartments and arrested 9 activists. Police broke down doors with guns drawn and searched residences without a warrant or consent. After holding them without charges for 48 hours the police released 6 of those arrested and filed the most serious charges possible against the 3 innocent Occupy activists from Florida, including possession of explosives or incendiary devices, material support for terrorism, and conspiracy. A gas can and some empty bottles in the car led to the explosives charges.
In an official statement released to the press the National Lawyers Guild, an official US wide organization for lawyers, Sarah Gelsomino with the NLG and the People's Law Office, said the following: "The National Lawyers Guild deplores the charges against Occupy activists in the strongest degree. It's outrageous for the city to apply terrorism charges when it's the police who have been terrorizing activists and threatening their right to protest."
The media is also being controlled, in a document titled NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION. FOR MEDIA GUIDANCE ONLY, the Chicago Police Department has set out rules for the press, targeting independent journalists in particular with passages such as the following: ”...media access generally will be the same as public access. Credentials will, however, allow media personnel access to media-only areas. No “cutting” in and out of police lines will be permitted, or “going up against their backs.” Those who follow protesters onto private property to document their actions are also will be subject to arrest if laws are broken.” ”Any member of the media who is arrested will have to go through the same booking process as anyone else. Release of equipment depends on what part the equipment played in the events that led to the arrest.”
An Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel has used the event to install permanent changes which strip away even more rights and freedoms from the people. The new measures include:
1. Authorization for the Mayor to purchase and deploy surveillance cameras throughout the city, without any type of oversight.
2. Restrictions on public activity, including amplified sound and morning gatherings.
3. Restrictions on parades, including the requirement to purchase an insurance policy worth $1 million and to register every sign or banner that will be held by more than one person.
4. The power to deputize many different types of law enforcement personnel other than the Chicago Police Department.
Protests have been drawn from the ACLU, Amnesty International, the Occupy Movement.
The summit has also been designated a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security thus passing final authority over law enforcement to the US Secret Service.
The Chicago police are armed to the teeth and have even ordered special armor for the horses of the mounted police.
According to Occupy Chicago, they are; “… organizing a week of actions highlighting the violence and oppression of NATO, and calling for the organization to be disbanded.”
Let’s hope for restraint and cool heads from all sides.
5 April 2012, 12:04
NATO Continuing its Global Expansion
NATO Continuing its Global Expansion
Just when humble shell-shocked little-old-you thought it was maybe, sort of, just quite possibly, kind of, a little safe
Just when humble shell-shocked little-old-you thought it was maybe, sort of, just quite possibly, kind of, a little safe to pop your head out of your marginally cozy self-delusional hiding place (a secret place you created to withstand the mind-numbing daily onslaught of images and reports of endless war, violence, genocide, corruption, unrest and the expanded “Democratization” of the entire planet), COMING SOON to a naïve, trusting, albeit; greedy and just morally-repugnant-enough-to-be-pliant COUNTRY NEAR YOU, A NEW and EXPANDED US/NATO PRESENCE (or its surrogate, doesn’t matter).
According to an Official Statement by Dr. Brad Roberts to the US House Armed Services Committee, dated March 6, 2012, in which he requests funding for US Missile Programs, the US is: implementing the principles of the phased adaptive approach in the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East (regions) and building on the existing foundations of U.S. cooperation. He writes; these regional approaches must be tailored to the unique mix of threat and geography in each region and that the footprint of U.S. military presence is different in each region, and will evolve in different ways over the coming decade.” In other words what we see now is just part of a long term plan of global domination.
According to the same document, in the Asia-Pacific Region: Japan has acquired its own layered missile defense system, and the United States and Japan are partnering in the co-development of an advanced version of the SM-3 interceptor, the SM-3 Block IIA, and the United States and Australia signed a memorandum of understanding on missile defense cooperation in 2004 and partnership on ballistic missile defense research and development, most notably in the field of sensors. The United States also continues to consult with the Republic of Korea regarding its future ballistic missile defense requirements. The US also engages in a trilateral dialogue with Japan and Australia and another trilateral dialogue with Japan and the Republic of Korea. This is important because it is the US engaging in talks but it is its surrogate NATO, which will be key in implementing the military structures and presence.
The document goes on to out-line plans for the Middle East including: improving interoperability between U.S. and Israeli missile defense systems and the 2008 deployment a forward-based radar in Israel. It states that the US Administration has requested nearly $450 million for Israeli rocket and missile defense between FY 2010 and 2013 and secured an additional $205 million in FY2011 to procure Iron Dome defense systems. $655 million is just for Israel. In a country faced with an economic crisis with the common people not even able to be provided with healthcare, this is a huge sum just for Israel.
Also, according to the same document, in the Middle East the US is working with a number of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries on missile defense, including the selling of U.S. missile defenses through the Foreign Military Sales program and the US is promoting interoperability and information sharing among the GCC states which they say will allow for more efficient missile defenses and could lead to greater security cooperation in the region.
A very key phrase in the document is one stating that; “… the primary purpose of the phased adaptive approaches to regional missile defense is to build upon a solid foundation to achieve improvements over the coming decade.” This phrase is important because it shows the plans for expansion and the forward thinking that it behind the whole approach. Meaning, to put it bluntly, today we have a few missiles in your face and tomorrow we have you surrounded and neutralized.
Another key figure is the amount that is being requested, and one must keep in mind that this for missile defense only, this does not include other military expenditures by the US and NATO. The document states that; “… the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request is $9.7 billion and $47.4 billion over the next five years to develop and deploy missile capabilities.” The document also claims that the phased adaptive approach is fully in line with the main themes of U.S. defense strategy in a period of budget austerity. They call $47.4 billion in line with budget austerity?!
These are just two regions that they mention; let us not forget that NATO and the US are expanding their “military footprint” (using their term) in the Arctic, in the Caucuses, in India and even into the Russian Federation itself, with the “harmless” renting of the Uzhni Airbase, a move opposed by the Communist Party and one that must be scrutinized under a microscope if it is to be seriously considered.
Also affecting the situation close to home is NATO’s continued love affair with Georgian President Saakashvili. On April 3rd the NATO-Georgia Commission met in NATO headquarters in Brussels with Saakashvili and Rasmussen both present. Rasmussen, the NATO Secretary General, said “A forceful statement with regard to cooperation with Georgia may be made at the NATO Chicago summit in late May 2012.” However he did not confirm that NATO would grant Georgia a NATO Membership Action Plan at the Chicago summit nor in what way exactly NATO would express its support to Georgia. Rasmussen said that the statement on Georgia will express NATO’s gratitude to Georgia for sending the largest military group of non-NATO member countries to Afghanistan, the alliance will confirm an important contribution of Georgia to trans-Atlantic cooperation and would once again acknowledge and welcome the Georgian wish to join it.
Speaking recently on Chicago Public Media about a NATO debate and calling for the disbandment of NATO, something many believe should have been done when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, NATO expert and anti-NATO activist Rick Rozoff called the Alliance: “… a lawless, aggressive, constantly expanding threat to the post-World War Two international political order and security system … and … a bellicose Western axis launching wars at will as far away from the North Atlantic Ocean as the Balkans, South Asia and North Africa, dividing and destroying nations in sanguinary rampages from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Libya to the Gulf of Aden. And completing the military encirclement of Russia, with Iran next and China after it, replete with an extension of the U.S.-NATO European interceptor missile system into the Persian Gulf, the South Caucasus, India and the general Asia-Pacific region. “
Mr. Rozoff finished a post to his mailing list recently with a simple question which I would like to echo, he asked: “When will the true world community come to its senses and demand that NATO be abolished?” I second that motion and add, isn’t it time we all woke up? Or perhaps it is already too late.
1 March 2012, 13:03
Time to Draw a Line for NATO
Interview with Mr. Rick Rosoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to www.globalresearch.ca 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 www.globalresearch.ca
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.
25 January 2012, 13:46
Saakashvili: NATO’s Favorite Little Despot
NATO’s Favorite Little Despot
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list, a contributing writer to GlobalResearch.ca, 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…
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.
29 November 2011, 18:36
Does the West Want Arms Race in Europe?
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to GlobalResearch.ca.
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.
19 October 2011, 16:02
NATO Planning First-Strike Again
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 Research.ca.
9 September 2011, 13:28
US Advances Reagan’s Star War Plans for Global NATO and Global Military Domination
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca. 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 Research.ca.
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.
31 August 2011, 18:23
Libya: Another Country for NATO
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca. 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.
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca.
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 Research.ca 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.
NATO Involvement in Libya: "Now we own it"
Professor Marjorie Cohn
Interview with Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School in San Diego and the editor of The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse . I’d like to ask you a few questions about the situation in Libya. What are your views on the future of Gaddafi? What do you think will happen with him?
Interview with Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School in San Diego and the editor of The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse.
I’d like to ask you a few questions about the situation in Libya. What are your views on the future of Gaddafi? What do you think will happen with him? And what is NATO’s role in the region legally? Do you think they’ve overstepped their mandate?
Yes, the Security Council Resolution 1973 does not authorize regime change. And yet everything that NATO and certainly the US have done is moving in that direction. In fact, some months ago, shortly after the invasion of Libya by NATO, President Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron – all wrote an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune that said that NATO force would fight in Libya until Gaddafi is gone, even though this resolution does not sanction regime change. And now the rebels are saying that allowing Gaddafi’s family to stay in Algeria is, what they call, an ’act of aggression’. So, they are clearly out to get Gaddafi and his family.
The rebels made a statement today that they want to capture Gaddafi, try him and execute him.
Yes, when you put somebody on trial you don’t pronounce the sentence until the trial is over. Their saying they want to try and execute him sounds like a kangaroo court to me. Gaddafi, if at all, should be tried by an international tribunal that is objective and is not going to engage in reprisals. Certainly, Gaddafi is not a great guy but there are massacres of civilians documented by NATO, in other words, NATO has conducted massacres, including one earlier this month in Majer, Libya, where family members, eye-witnesses and Libyan government officials said that NATO’s air strikes at Majer killed 85 people, including 33 children, 32 women and 20 men. Reporters and visitors saw 30 of the bodies at a local morgue, including a mother and two children. We don’t know how many civilians have been killed by the NATO bombs, even though the stated purpose of the NATO intervention was to protect civilians.
What can the international community or people in general do to see that justice is done?
I think that publicizing what is really happening is the most important thing – and that’s what you and I are doing right now. The Daily Beast publication in the US came out with a piece today by John Barry, saying that the US military is conducting a secret war in Libya and has helped NATO with everything from munitions to surveillance aircraft, that the US military has spent $1 billion and played a far larger role in Libya than it has acknowledged and that there is an emerging covert intervention strategy, deploying far more forces than the Obama Administration wants to advertize. I think it’s important to get at why the US and its NATO allies are so intent on getting rid of Gaddafi. Libya played an important role in financing the African Bank, which allowed African nations to avoid dealing with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Libya also financed an African Telecommunications System that saved African countries hundreds of millions of dollars, allowing them to bypass western-controlled networks. He also raised the standard of living. I’m not saying he is a great guy, but Libya is the largest oil producer in Africa, the twelfth largest in the world, and its oil resources are very important for NATO’s European allies. The manager of the rebel-controlled Arabian Gulf Oil Company, Libya’s largest oil producer, said: “We don’t have a problem with western countries. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil, because those last three countries are not involved in the NATO mission in Libya.” And a British official told The Economist that NATO’s involvement in Libya means that: "Now we own it." So, there is going to be a lot of instability because of this organization that NATO has recognized, the National Transitional Council, which evidently doesn’t necessarily support the rebels in Libya. I think you are going to see a lot of chaos with a lot of covert, behind-the-scenes choreographing of what’s going to happen in Libya. And, quite frankly, I’d be surprised if they do actually find Gaddafi, if not just to kill him the way they killed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. If you look at the events leading up to the NATO invasion, they talked about relying on this responsibility to protect doctrine. It’s not enshrined in any international treaty, it’s not part of customary international law. But it says that the international community through the United Nations has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means in accordance with Chapters 6 and 8 of the UN Charter to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Chapter 6 of the UN Charter requires parties to seek a solution peacefully by negotiation. And yet they did not do that. Instead of pursuing an immediate ceasefire, immediate military action was taken. And the military force being used by NATO exceeds the bounds of “all necessary measures”, authorization and this resolution 1973. After the passage of the resolution Libya immediately offered to accept international monitors and Gaddafi offered to step down and leave Libya, but those offers were immediately rejected. And another thing that is very interesting is the double standard in the use of military force to protect civilians in Bahrain, where NATO force was being used to quell anti-government protest because that’s where the US Fifth Fleet is stationed. And The Asia Times reported that before the invasion of Libya the US made a deal with Saudi Arabia where the Saudis would invade Bahrain to help put down the anti-democracy protesters and Saudi Arabia would enlist the support of the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya. The Arab League support for a no-fly zone effectively neutralized opposition from China and Russia to Security Council Resolution 1973. But, as I said, NATO has gone far beyond a no-fly zone.
March 26, 2012
NATO and the Militarization of the Arctic
Interview with Rick Rozoff , the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca 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?
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca
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 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.
22 July 2011, 15:04
US Afghan strategy: senseless and merciless
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca 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?
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca 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.
July 05, 2011
NATO Ambition is Global Domination
NATO Ambition is Global Domination
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to the web site Global Research.ca. 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.
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to the web site Global Research.ca.
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.