Category Archives: Russia

Islamic State & the war in Ukraine

This small (4 minute) interview with Sharmine Narwani is an excellent analysis of the US re-invasion of Iraq.

The Ukrainian Junta and IS are monsters of western creation, with the IS (Islamic State) being a partnership with gulf arab states. Both further US strategic interests:

1) In Ukraine the objective is to install a permanent state of war in Russia’s backyard and any criticism of the regime will be blacked out. The eventual target is of course destruction of Russia. 

2) In the Middle East the objective is to break up Iraq into 3 pieces, install a permanent state of war and to weaken Syria,Lebanon & Iran. All three countries can resolve this crisis on their own. Hence the artificial hollywood line up of executions to promote direct US involvement. They could not have Iran,Syria,Lebanon (with Russian assistance) kill their demon baby (Islamic State).

Prognosis: US failure as the “coalition of the unwilling tyrants” has no appetite for war on both fronts;

1) Europe is living a nightmare it cannot be woken out of, even a defeat militarily (though NATO intervention is highly unlikely) would be welcome relief. The latest ceasefire is a farce and an outcome of Russia’s own 5th column that has been limiting a quick resolution since day one. Putin is not almighty as many believe. This situation will keep developing and eventually should lead to a purge in the Russian government apparatus. It is highly unlikely that the US will succeed in its long term objectives, it has however underscored short term wins in Ukraine. Almost all of Ukraine has been either sold off or is in the process.

2)In the Middle East the new demon baby (after Israel of course) is running loose but that may have been the intention afterall. For the US to keep its “allies” in check. The US strategic aim is again a permanent state of war not peace. The gulf arab contribution to the creation of IS is irrelevant as they have obviously not thought this one through. There is no way the gulf arab states can defend themselves against battle hardened guerrillas. For a moment consider how they have not once defended themselves in recent history.

A key litmus test, of the direction of the US campaign, would be Syria’s reaction to US attacks on its forces. This will most likely happen as the US did not get the chance last year, remember they still want regime change in Syria. That is still the plan.

AE

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Uncle Sam Does Ukraine: U.S. Meddling Dims Prospects for Peace, by Mike Whitney

The so-called ceasefire is most likely nothing more than a ploy to regroup because the offered terms are simply ridiculous. It is no coincidence that it came at a time when the rebels were on a winning streak and the Nazi forces were falling apart.

You can read an excellent analysis by Stratediplo on the ceasefire to understand why it simply does not make sense.

Mike puts it all together by an excellent analysis of the situation across the board.

AE


“It’s Uncle Sam who’s pushing us into this slaughter. And let’s be frank, many politicians in Ukraine are just following his orders.”

– Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko

The Minsk Ceasefire Protocol has very little chance of succeeding. In fact, the meeting between the warring parties was not convened to stop the violence as much as it was to buy time for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) to retreat and regroup. In the last two weeks, the junta’s army has suffered “catastrophic” losses leaving President Petro Poroshenko with the choice of either calling for a truce or facing the unpleasant prospect of complete annihilation. Poroshenko wisely chose to withdraw under cover of the ceasefire agreement. But let’s not kid ourselves, Poroshenko only accepted that humiliation because he had no other choice. Once he gathers his forces and rearms, he’ll be back with a vengeance.

[Please click below to continue reading]
Continue reading Uncle Sam Does Ukraine: U.S. Meddling Dims Prospects for Peace, by Mike Whitney

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Kuchma-Zurabov protocol: Concession or Treason ? , By Stratediplo

The OSCE published yesterday the text of the protocol of agreement signed on Friday, September 5 in Minsk. One cannot guess what happened but if it is true that Poroshenko promised he would order his troops to cease fire in case Putin’s seven-points project was signed, it’s easy to understand that he finally abstained from ordering this ceasefire since the signed document doesn’t correspond at all to the Putin project (which would never have considered, for example, the creation of a demilitarised zone in Russia).

On the contrary, it is almost word for word the 14-point “peace plan” proclaimed by Poroshenko himself on June 20, delivering to the resistance to the coup d’état a one-week ultimatum to drop its weapons and go into exile, which a lot of analysts interpreted as the announcement of ethnic cleansing. This is actually what the near future could confirm with the destruction of Slaviansk and Kramatorsk, the expulsion of more than a million civilians and the besieging of three million people in two urban areas in which life-sustaining infrastructure (drinking water and electricity) would be systematically destroyed, humanitarian and media access denied, and a massacre undertaken not only by intensive anti-urban strategic bombing (including the use of prohibited weapons) but also by the bombing of chemical plants.

It’s difficult to resist the temptation to comment each of these 12 points of an agreement obviously imposed on Novorussia.

[Please click below to continue reading]

Continue reading Kuchma-Zurabov protocol: Concession or Treason ? , By Stratediplo

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Sinister Pretext for War with Russia, by Mike Whitney

“There is no innocent explanation for the sudden disappearance of MH17 from the media and political spotlight. The plane’s black box has been held in Britain for examination for weeks, and US and Russian spy satellites and military radar were intensively scanning east Ukraine at the time of the crash. The claim that Washington does not have detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the crash and the various forces involved is not credible.”

– Niles Williamson, “Why have the media and Obama administration gone silent on MH17?”, World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/18/ukmh-a18.html

See: 11 minute you tube “MH17 – We know with 99% certainty who shot down MH17

The Obama administration has failed to produce any hard evidence that pro-Russia separatists were responsible for the downing of Malaysia Flight 17.  The administration’s theory– that the jetliner was downed by a surface-to-air missile launched from rebel territory in east Ukraine– is not supported by radar data, satellite imagery, eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence.  In fact, there is no factual basis for the hypothesis at all. It’s merely politically-motivated speculation that’s been repeated endlessly in the media to shape public opinion. The preponderance of evidence suggests a different scenario altogether, that is, that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian fighters in an effort to frame the pro-Russia separatists and demonize Russia by implication.  This is precisely why the MH17 story has vanished from all the major media for the last three weeks. It’s because the bloody fingerprints point to Obama’s puppet-government in Kiev.

So what are the facts?

[Please Click Below to read more]

Continue reading Sinister Pretext for War with Russia, by Mike Whitney

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

The Insidious Power of Propaganda, by Karel Van Wolferen

To study the effects of political propaganda in what used to be called the ‘free world’ there could hardly be a better time than now. We are living through an instance of insidious propaganda that has clean contours. It fills a common need. In a period of large-scale slaughter and other man-made disaster the morally conscious person can do with some clear categories of good and bad, desirable and despicable. Political certainty, in other words. You can even sell wars using ‘moral clarity’ as a sales pitch, as happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Good-evil classification is easy enough when we have imprisoned journalists decapitated by jihadis. Those who “will do something about that” are automatically placed in the ‘good guys’ category. But there is a problem of murkiness in this sample. Syria’s Assad has been listed for years at the top of the bad guy list, and yet he appears to be changing into something of an ally of those who are intent now on setting things straight. On top of which, the fact that the radical islamists out of which ISIS emerged were funded and encouraged by the United States and its Arab allies is not a deep secret, and the fact that none of this mayhem would now exist were it not for the sorcerer’s apprentice effect of the decapitation of the Iraqi state in 2003 has been pretty much agreed on.

[Please click below to continue reading]

Continue reading The Insidious Power of Propaganda, by Karel Van Wolferen

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Operation Rescue Russia and a big “FU” to Eurangloland, by Jeff J. Brown

This is a well researched and humorous article written with a very exciting flow. A real treat to read such comprehensive work and witt at play.

There has been a lot of political maneuvering these past few days. Will there be a united Ukraine with a federal government or a divided Ukraine. While we believe that the ship for federal state  has sailed it is important to know the economic factors both in Russia and Ukraine.

The work below explores economics on the Russian side with its brilliant food ban.

Originally published on : 44 Days Blog

AE


 

More and more of the world’s 85% are happy to give Eurangloland a big, public raspberry – and loving it (image by busyminds.ae)
More and more of the world’s 85% are happy to give Eurangloland a big, public raspberry – and loving it (image by busyminds.ae)

A funny thing happened on the way to 500 years of Western Empire and colonialism. Russia just boycotted Eurangoland’s (The EU, US, Canada, Australia, less New Zealand, which was spared) food and agricultural products, which in itself is very telling about ongoing trends. But there’s more. The oppressed are biting back. Until recently, the ongoing reaction of the world’s non-Eurangloland governments to Russia’s stand (those which represent the 85% of our planet’s people), would have been unimaginable. So, sit back and enjoy the show.

In all fairness to this proud, global majority, you must add the peoples of Japan and South Korea to Eurangloland’s empire. They are militarily occupied, supine satraps to the Princes of Power in Washington. Groveling like dogs, they actually take their barking orders from the West seriously. Throw in a few more countries that cower at the feet of Western Empire and we can say that about 20% of the world’s people rule the remaining 80%, not much differently than the pharaohs did over their subjects and slaves in Ancient Egypt. The Pareto principle applies here too. This secondary list of client states waxes and wanes, depending on how recently the CIA/MI6/DGSE deep state has installed a whore government in their puppet, local halls of power, or as in the Philippines recently, which prostrated itself to America’s Worldwide Wehrmacht. Ukraine is the most recent prom slut for Western servitude and so far, Venezuela is holding out admirably against the West’s internal efforts at regime change.

Kudos to Russia for its genius to pick ag products as a punch in the solar plexus of power. As Deena Stryker recently pointed out in a recent article,

[Please click below to read further.]

Continue reading Operation Rescue Russia and a big “FU” to Eurangloland, by Jeff J. Brown

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism & the Atlanticist Faith, by Karel van Wolferen

In this well timed piece veteran journalist Karel van Wolferen talks about and summarises the factors that allow for a categorically false narrative to survive. He points out the unwillingness of the Dutch to point the finger of blame for this whole mess where it should rest, Washington.

This phenomenon of Washington somehow being the “lesser of two evils” is utter non sense. Either intentional or unintentional, the “forgetfulness” and the misleading image of a “benign” superpower when analysing American action has meant that many more continue to die in Washington’s quest to subdue the planet.

Apparently, murdering millions, the irony of overthrowing democracies, thousands of military bases, usage of nuclear & chemical weapons on civilians and continual lying has not “earned” Washington a place as a destructive and evil force. Instead it is Putin who is the reincarnation of supreme soviet evil. Such is the power of the Deep State and propaganda.

Karel, has made an excellent case for the ongoing tragedy to stop and for Europeans to reflect and push back the war that is being put on them. Will Europe awaken from its slumber?

AE


The European Union is not (anymore) guided by politicians with a grasp of history, a sober assessment of global reality, or simple common sense connected with the long term interests of what they are guiding. If any more evidence was needed, it has certainly been supplied by the sanctions they have agreed on last week aimed at punishing Russia.

One way to fathom their foolishness is to start with the media, since whatever understanding or concern these politicians may have personally they must be seen to be doing the right thing, which is taken care of by TV and newspapers.

In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented ‘news’ in which insinuation and vilification substitute for proper reporting. Respected publications, like the Financial Times or the once respected NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands for which I worked sixteen years as East Asia Correspondent, not only joined in with this corrupted journalism but helped guide it to mad conclusions. The punditry and editorials that have grown out of this have gone further than anything among earlier examples of sustained media hysteria stoked for political purposes that I can remember. The most flagrant example I have come across, an anti-Putin leader in the (July 26) Economist Magazine, had the tone of Shakespeare’s Henry V exhorting his troops before the battle of Agincourt as he invaded France.

One should keep in mind that there are no European-wide newspapers or publications to sustain a European public sphere, in the sense of a means for politically interested Europeans to ponder and debate with each other big international developments. Because those interested in world affairs usually read the international edition of the New York Times or the Financial Times, questions and answers on geopolitical matters are routinely shaped or strongly influenced by what editors in New York and London have determined as being important. Thinking that may deviate significantly as can now be found in Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit and Handelsblatt, does not travel across German borders. Hence we do not see anything like a European opinion evolving on global affairs, even when these have a direct impact on the interests of the European Union itself.

The Dutch population was rudely shaken out of a general complacency with respect to world events that could affect it, through the death of 193 fellow nationals (along with a 105 people of other nationalities) in the downed plane, and its media were hasty in following the American-initiated fingerpointing at Moscow. Explanations that did not in some way involve culpability of the Russian president seemed to be out of bounds. This was at odds right away with statements of a sober Dutch prime minister, who was under considerable pressure to join the fingerpointing but who insisted on waiting for a thorough examination of what precisely had happened.

The TV news programs I saw in the days immediately afterwards had invited, among other anti–Russian expositors, American neocon-linked talking heads to do the disclosing to a puzzled and truly shaken up audience. A Dutch foreign policy specialist explained that the foreign minister or his deputy could not go to the site of the crash (as Malaysian officials did) to recover the remains of Dutch citizens, because that would amount to an implicit recognition of diplomatic status for the “separatists”. When the European Union en bloc recognizes a regime that has come into existence through an American initiated coup d’état, you are diplomatically stuck with it.

The inhabitants and anti-Kiev fighters at the crash site were portrayed, with images from youtube, as uncooperative criminals, which for many viewers amounted to a confirmation of their guilt. This changed when later reports from actual journalists showed shocked and deeply concerned villagers, but the discrepancy was not explained, and earlier assumptions of villainy did not make way for any objective analysis of why these people might be fighting at all. Tendentious twitter and youtube ‘news’ had become the basis for official Dutch indignation with the East Ukrainians, and a general opinion arose that something had to be set straight, which was, again in general opinion, accomplished by a grand nationally televised reception of the human remains (released through Malaysian mediation) in a dignified sober martial ceremony.

Nothing that I have seen or read even intimated that the Ukraine crisis – which led to coup and civil war – was created by neoconservatives and a few R2P (“Responsibility to Protect”) fanatics in the State Department and the White House, apparently given a free hand by President Obama. The Dutch media also appeared unaware that the catastrophe was immediately turned into a political football for White House and State Department purposes. The likelihood that Putin was right when he said that the catastrophe would not have happened if his insistence on a cease-fire had been accepted, was not entertained.

As it was, Kiev broke the cease-fire – on the 10th of June – in its civil war against Russian speaking East Ukrainians who do not wish to be governed by a collection of thugs, progeny of Ukrainian nazis, and oligarchs enamored of the IMF and the European Union. The supposed ‘rebels’ have been responding to the beginnings of ethnic cleansing operations (systematic terror bombing and atrocities – 30 or more Ukrainians burned alive) committed by Kiev forces, of which little or nothing has penetrated into European news reports.

It is unlikely that the American NGOs, which by official admission spent 5 billion dollars in political destabilization efforts prior to the February putsch in Kiev, have suddenly disappeared from the Ukraine, or that America’s military advisors and specialized troops have sat idly by as Kiev’s military and militias mapped their civil war strategy; after all, the new thugs are as a regime on financial life-support provided by Washington, the European Union and IMF. What we know is that Washington is encouraging the ongoing killing in the civil war it helped trigger.

But Washington has constantly had the winning hand in a propaganda war against, entirely contrary to what mainstream media would have us believe, an essentially unwilling opponent. Waves of propaganda come from Washington and are made to fit assumptions of a Putin, driven and assisted by a nationalism heightened by the loss of the Soviet empire, who is trying to expand the Russian Federation up to the borders of that defunct empire. The more adventurous punditry, infected by neocon fever, has Russia threatening to envelop the West. Hence Europeans are made to believe that Putin refuses diplomacy, while he has been urging this all along. Hence prevailing propaganda has had the effect that not Washington’s but Putin’s actions are seen as dangerous and extreme. Anyone with a personal story that places Putin or Russia in a bad light must move right now; Dutch editors seem insatiable at the moment.

There is no doubt that the frequently referred to Moscow propaganda exists. But there are ways for serious journalists to weigh competing propaganda and discern how much veracity or lies and bullshit they contain. Within my field of vision this has only taken place a bit in Germany. For the rest we must piece political reality together relying on the now more than ever indispensable American websites hospitable to whistleblowers and old-fashioned investigative journalism, which especially since the onset of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the Iraq invasion have formed a steady form of samizdat publishing.

In The Netherlands almost anything that comes from the State Department is taken at face value. America’s history, since the demise of the Soviet Union, of truly breathtaking lies: on Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Libya and North Korea; its record of overthrown governments; its black-op and false flag operations; and its stealthily garrisoning of the planet with some thousand military bases, is conveniently left out of consideration. The near hysteria throughout a week following the downed airliner prevented people with some knowledge of relevant history from opening their mouths. Job security in the current world of journalism is quite shaky, and going against the tide would be almost akin to siding with the devil, as it would damage one’s journalistic ‘credibility’.

What strikes an older generation of serious journalists as questionable about the mainstream media’s credibility is editorial indifference to potential clues that would undermine or destroy the official story line; a story line that has already permeated popular culture as is evident in throwaway remarks embellishing book and film reviews along with much else. In The Netherlands the official story is already carved in stone, which is to be expected when it is repeated ten-thousand times. It cannot be discounted, of course, but it is based on not a shred of evidence.

The presence of two Ukrainian fighter planes near the Malaysian airliner on Russian radar would be a potential clue I would be very interested in if I were investigating either as journalist or member of the investigation team that The Netherlands has officially been put in charge of. This appeared to be corroborated by a BBC Report with eyewitness accounts from the ground by villagers who clearly saw another plane, a fighter, close to the airliner, near the time of its crash, and heard explosions coming from the sky. This report has recently drawn attention because it was removed from the BBC’s archive. I would want to talk with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site who spent more than a week examining the wreckage and has described on CBC World News two or three “really pock-marked” pieces of fuselage. “It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else.”

I would certainly also want to have a look at the allegedly confiscated radar and voice records of the Kiev Air Control Tower to understand why the Malaysian pilot veered off course and rapidly descended shortly before his plane crashed, and find out whether foreign air controllers in Kiev were indeed sent packing immediately after the crash. Like the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity”, I would certainly urge the American authorities with access to satellite images to show the evidence they claim to have of BUK missile batteries in ‘rebel’ hands as well as of Russian involvement, and ask them why they have not done so already. Until now Washington has acted like a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test. Since intelligence officials have leaked to some American newspapers their lesser certainty about the American certainties as brought to the world by the Secretary of State, my curiosity would be unrelenting.

To place European media loyalty to Washington in the Ukraine case as well as the slavish conduct of European politicians in perspective, we must know about and understand Atlanticism. It is a European faith. It has not given rise to an official doctrine, of course, but it functions like one. It is well summed up by the Dutch slogan at the time of the Iraq invasion: “zonder Amerika gaat het niet” (without the United States [things] [it] won’t work). Needless to say, the Cold War gave birth to Atlanticism. Ironically, it gained strength as the threat from the Soviet Union became less persuasive for increasing numbers among European political elites. That probably was a matter of generational change: the farther away from World War II, the less European governments remembered what it means to have an independent foreign policy on global-sized issues. Current heads of government of the European Union are unfamiliar with practical strategic deliberations. Routine thought on international relations and global politics is deeply entrenched in Cold War epistemology.

This inevitably also informs ‘responsible’ editorial policies.  Atlanticism is now a terrible affliction for Europe: it fosters historical amnesia, willful blindness and dangerously misconceived political anger. But it thrives on a mixture of lingering unquestioned Cold War era certainties about protection, Cold War loyalties embedded in popular culture, sheer European ignorance, and an understandable reluctance to concede that one has even for a little bit been brainwashed. Washington can do outrageous things while leaving Atlanticism intact because of everyone’s forgetfulness, which the media do little or nothing to cure. I know Dutch people who have become disgusted with the vilification of Putin, but the idea that in the context of Ukraine the fingerpointing should be toward Washington is well-nigh unacceptable. Hence, Dutch publications, along with many others in Europe, cannot bring themselves to place the Ukraine crisis in proper perspective by acknowledging that Washington started it all, and that Washington rather than Putin has the key to its solution. It would impel a renunciation of Atlanticism.

Atlanticism derives much of its strength through NATO, its institutional embodiment. The reason for NATO’s existence, which disappeard with the demise of the Soviet Union, has been largely forgotten. Formed in 1949, it was based on the idea that transatlantic cooperation for security and defense had become necessary after World War II in the face of a communism, orchestrated by Moscow, intent on taking over the entire planet. Much less talked about was European internal distrust, as the Europeans set off on their first moves towards economic integration. NATO constituted a kind of American guarantee that no power in Europe would ever try to dominate the others.

NATO has for some time now been a liability for the European Union, as it prevents development of concerted European foreign and defense policies, and has forced the member states to become instruments serving American militarism.

It is also a moral liability because the governments participating in the ‘coalition of the willing’ have had to sell the lie to their citizens that European soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a necessary sacrifice to keep Europe safe from terrorists. Governments that have supplied troops to areas occupied by the United States have generally done this with considerable reluctance, earning the reproach from a succession of American officials that Europeans do too little for the collective purpose of defending democracy and freedom.

As is the mark of an ideology, Atlanticism is ahistorical. As horse medicine against the torment of fundamental political ambiguity it supplies its own history: one that may be rewritten by American mainstream media as they assist in spreading the word from Washington. There could hardly be a better demonstration of this than the Dutch experience at the moment. In conversations these past three weeks I have encountered genuine surprise when reminding friends that the Cold War ended through diplomacy with a deal made on Malta between Gorbachev and the elder Bush in December 1989, in which James Baker got Gorbachev to accept the reunification of Germany and withdrawal of Warsaw Pact troops with a promise that NATO would not be extended even one inch to the East. Gorbachev pledged not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had some 350,000 troops in East Germany alone, in return for Bush’s promise that Washington would not take advantage of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Bill Clinton reneged on those American promises when, for purely electoral reasons, he boasted about an enlargement of NATO and in 1999 made the Czech Republic and Hungary full members. Ten years later another nine countries became members, at which point the number of NATO countries was double the number during the Cold War. The famous American specialist on Russia, Ambassador George Kennan, originator of Cold War containment policy, called Clinton’s move “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

Historical ignorance abetted by Atlanticism is poignantly on display in the contention that the ultimate proof in the case against Vladimir Putin is his invasion of Crimea. Again, political reality here was created by America’s mainstream media. There was no invasion, as the Russian sailors and soldiers were already there since it is home to the ‘warm water’ Black Sea base for the Russian navy. Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the United States has existed. In 1954 Khrushchev, who himself came from the Ukraine, gave it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, which came down to moving a region to a different province, since Russia and Ukraine still belonged to the same country. The Russian speaking Crimean population was happy enough, as it voted in a referendum first for independence from the Kiev regime that resulted from the coup d’état, and subsequently for reunification with Russia.

Those who maintain that Putin had no right to do such a thing are unaware of another strand of history in which the United States has been moving (Star Wars) missile defense systems ever closer to Russian borders, supposedly to intercept hostile missiles from Iran, which do not exist. Sanctimonious talk about territorial integrity and sovereignty makes no sense under these circumstances, and coming from a Washington that has done away with the concept of sovereignty in its own foreign policy it is downright ludicrous.

A detestable Atlanticist move was the exclusion of Putin from the meetings and other events connected with the commemoration of the Normandy landings, for the first time in 17 years. The G8 became the G7 as a result. Amnesia and ignorance have made the Dutch blind to a history that directly concerned them, since the Soviet Union took the heart out of the Nazi war machine (that occupied The Netherlands) at a cost of incomparable and unimaginable numbers of military dead; without that there would not have been a Normandy invasion.

Not so long ago, the complete military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be moving NATO to a point where its inevitable demise could not to be too far off. But the Ukraine crisis and Putin’s decisiveness in preventing the Crimea with its Russian Navy base from possibly falling into the hands of the American-owned alliance, has been a godsend to this earlier faltering institution.

NATO leadership has already been moving troops to strengthen their presence in the Baltic states, sending missiles and attack aircraft to Poland and Lithuania, and since the downing of the Malaysian airliner it has been preparing further military moves that may turn into dangerous provocations of Russia. It has become clear that the Polish foreign minister together with the Baltic countries, none of which partook in NATO when its reason for being could still be defended, have become a strong driving force behind it. A mood of mobilisation has spread in the past week. The ventriloquist dummies Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer can be relied upon to take to TV screens inveighing against NATO member state backsliding. Rasmussen, the current Secretary General, declared on August 7 in Kiev that NATO’s “support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is unwavering” and that he is looking to strengthen partnership with the country at the Alliance’s summit in Wales in September. That partnership is already strong, so he said, “and in response to Russia’s aggression, NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defence institutions.”

In the meantime, in the American Congress 23 Senate Republicans have sponsored legislation, the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, which is meant to allow Washington to make the Ukraine a non-NATO ally and could set the stage for a direct military conflict with Russia. We will probably have to wait until after America’s midterm elections to see what will become of it, but it already helps provide a political excuse for those in Washington who want to take next steps in the Ukraine.

In September last year Putin helped Obama by making it possible for him to stop a bombing campaign against Syria pushed by the neocons, and had also helped in defusing the nuclear dispute with Iran, another neocon project. This led to a neocon commitment to break the Putin-Obama link. It is hardly a secret that the neoconservatives desire the overthrow of Putin and eventual dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Less known in Europe is the existence of numerous NGO’s at work in Russia, which will help them with this. Vladimir Putin could strike now or soon, to preempt NATO and the American Congress, by taking Eastern Ukraine, something he probably should have done right after the Crimean referendum. That would, of course, be proof of his evil intentions in European editorial eyes.

In the light of all this, one of the most fateful questions to ask in current global affairs is: what has to happen for Europeans to wake up to the fact that Washington is playing with fire and has ceased being the protector they counted on, and is instead now endangering their security? Will the moment come when it becomes clear that the Ukraine crisis is, most of all, about placing Star Wars missile batteries along an extensive stretch of Russian border, which gives Washington – in the insane lingo of nuclear strategists – ‘first strike’ capacity?

It is beginning to sink in among older Europeans that the United States has enemies who are not Europe’s enemies because it needs them for domestic political reasons; to keep an economically hugely important war industry going and to test by shorthand the political bona fides of contenders for public office. But while using rogue states and terrorists as targets for ‘just wars’ has never been convincing, Putin’s Russia as demonized by a militaristic NATO could help prolong the transatlantic status quo. The truth behind the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined. Its black boxes are in London. In NATO hands?

Other hindrances to an awakening remain huge; financialization and neoliberal policies have produced an intimate transatlantic entwining of plutocratic interests. Together with the Atlanticist faith these have helped stymie the political development of the European Union, and with that Europe’s ability to proceed with independent political decisions. Since Tony Blair, Great Britain has been in Washington’s pocket, and since Nicolas Sarkozy one can say more or less the same of France.

That leaves Germany. Angela Merkel was clearly unhappy with the sanctions, but in the end went along because she wants to remain on the good side of the American president, and the United States as the conqueror in World War II does still have leverage through a variety of agreements. Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoted in newspapers and appearing on TV, repudiated the sanctions and points at Iraq and Libya as examples of the results brought by escalation and ultimatums, yet he too swings round and in the end goes along with them.

Der Spiegel is one of the German publications that offer hope. One of its columnists, Jakob Augstein, attacks the “sleepwalkers” who have agreed to sanctions, and censures his colleagues’ fingerpointing at Moscow. Gabor Steingart, who publishes Handelsblatt, inveighs against the “American tendency to verbal and then to military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies” and concludes that also German journalism “has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope.” There must be more journalists in other parts of Europe who say things like this, but their voices do not carry through the din of vilification.

History is being made, once again. What may well determine Europe’s fate is that also outside the defenders of the Atlanticist faith, decent Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.

Karel van Wolferen (born 1941, Rotterdam) is a Dutch journalistwriter and professor, who is particularly recognised for his knowledge of Japanese politics,economicshistory and culture. He is the author of over 20 books and most well known for his 1989 book “The Enigma of Japanese Power” which has been translated in 12 languages.

(http://www.karelvanwolferen.com/)

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oceania Saker.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

An appeal to the people of europe,by Philip Ekozyants in Kharkov

The sincere pouring of emotions from all corners of the world is a beautiful thing to witness. Ordinary people are getting up from their seats and doing “something”.  The greatness in the people of Ukraine is being reawoken and their Russian heritage is returning to them.

The shame of the post Soviet period might just become a distant memory rather than a recent tragedy. The United States might have woken up something they never intended to wake ever again; the Russian spirit.

The Ukraine has a new hope to chart its destiny as a Russian people.

As one reader wrote earlier from Germany:

“If Ukraine goes to the West, it will go into the sunset of a declining part of the world.

If you go East, you will go into the sunrise of a rich and prosperous commonwealth.

I wished we in Germany would have the choice that you have.”

(Dr. Bernhard Seitz, “Let my people Go”)

I also would to specially thank @Catherina_News for translation and publication.

AE


 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Remember that we are Russians, by Andrey Avramenko in Kharkov

This passionate Manifesto is a testament to the immense emotions that have been left bottled up in the people of Ukraine. Emotions that were not allowed to be voiced in the “democratic” Ukraine under US/EU influence.

For one of the conditions of being progressive,evolved and a member of the “International Community” is to be a  rabid russophobe. The demonization of Russia, its culture,its people and history is a norm in western “democracies”.

The Ukrainian and Russian people need not be at war, they have much in common and much to be proud about their shared heritage.

Let not western propaganda ever pass through the lands of those who fought tooth and nail against a great evil that was unleashed on them with Hitler and now again with NATO.

This article originally appeared at The Saker’s Vineyard.

AE


I envy the Russians, I envy these “katsaps” and “the Moskals”!

I envy their Olympics and their army. I have many friends and relatives in Russia. I see how they change and grow. They believe their President. They believe in their army. They are proud of their great history, achievements and victories.

It was once our common history … victories and achievements. Not so long ago. They have found their ground. They don’t care about the West we worship. They move on and grow, despite of what we are told on our TVs and various social forums. I know that it’s us who are losing, and not them. We have become weaker, and they have gotten stronger.

No matter how loud we keep shouting “Glory to Ukraine!” we can’t stop it.

Not so long ago we were gloating when they had Chechnya.

Today the Chechens are no less Russian than the Russians themselves. They are ready to fight for their revived and great country, of which they are a part. Today we are the one to be frightened with the Chechen battalions. How did this happen???

They were killing each other just yesterday. But the reason is simple: the Chechens were able to remember that they were Russian, and they were part of the great Country and the Great People.

We gloat when they have terrorist attacks and disasters.

However, they overcome them over and over again and become stronger! Even though the whole world is against them!

They fall and rise again. Stand and grin. And just spit blood through their teeth.

We are screaming that they are slaves. That they will soon fall apart, the oil will fall, NATO will attack, and they will be struck down with another punishment. But they are us! We spit on our own reflection. On ourselves.

We must remember that we are a whole. And once we begin to understand and realize it, only then will come the feeling that once our ancestors had. A sense of inner strength, hope, faith, and pride that we are also the Russians.

It doesn’t matter who our ancestors were: Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, Buryats, or Uzbeks. It doesn’t matter who we are by faith: Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims or Jews. This is not important. What’s important is that we are Russians! That we’re a part of the Great people and the Great country.

Yes, our Great Country and our Great People still have a lot of problems. But if we remember that we are Russians, we will change everything forever! Everybody is afraid of that.

They are afraid that we will remember and will be together again.

That’s why they are building spider webs of lies and deceits. This lie and hatred is being maintained by us and in Russia.

They do not allow us to wake up. And if we do not remember who we are, you will never wake up.

About the situation, occupation and others.

Who shouts the loudest that we need to protect “our” independence, unity and freedom? The same officials, oligarchs and parliamentarians. They are terrified that they will have to answer for everything that has happened to our Motherland over the years.

Maybe this is not the occupation? Perhaps, this is the liberation? And our people came, when we lost all our hope, when we almost gave up.

Perhaps, we need to stand together and destroy all these lying politicians, oligarchs, mayors and officials, who are foaming at their mouths and screaming that we need to go and die! To die for their villas, yachts and castles, for their bank accounts, for their freedom to rob us, and for freedom from answering for their actions.

I understand that this Manifesto will be cut out from the web. There will be thousands of angry comments, screams that I’m a traitor, that I was sold out to Putin, that I am katsap and Moskal. I don’t care. I know that the truth is with me.

I am a patriot of Ukraine, a true patriot, and now the fate of my people and my Ukraine is being decided.

Either we remember who we are, or we will perish.

I love my Ukrainian people, our ancestors and our culture.

I’m Ukrainian, but more than that I am Russian!

Andrey Avramenko, Kharkov


source: http://svetoven.pogled.info/news/57531/Andrei-Avramenko-Az-zavizhdam-na-rusnatsite

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn