22-08-2014, 04:58 PM
The Ukraine
24-08-2014, 03:43 PM
25-08-2014, 03:39 AM
Their enemy has no ressources to mount successful offensives any more, for over a month, and certainly none with direct contact. All excursions have been circumventing militia positions and gone cross country so that they can "take" a deserted and undefended town in the rear, and paint their colors on a map. But every one of those, they've been chased out of as soon as the militia arrived, and it has driven them out and retaken everything. All of those resulted in massive losses in manpower and equipment, and every single time they ended in encirclement and either annihalation or routing (or both) of the attacking unit. Their last direct assault with contact attack from several directions resulted in a disaster, and every one since ended the same. The meatgrinder has done it's job. There's only so many fanatics you can find to run into death, and almost all of those fanatics and volunteers have been used up. Now they are left with very few fanatics, and a lot of people that they had to drag to the battlefield by their feet. How combat worthy they are can be calculated by a little child. Or you can just take a look at what happened in the last five days and you will have your answer.
On the other side of that, you have people who've had plenty of experience in fighting, movement, organization, aiming, effective fire, they are all highly motivated and willing to fight, and bolstered by new volunteers every day, with every regime shell and rocket that lands and murders someone's family or neighbours, and destroys someones home. And with the collapse of the frontline those numbers will grow further, no one wants to join in on the (seemingly) losing side, but a lot of people will run alongside the winning side chasing the fleeing enemy.
- Ukraine used up it's fanatics and volunteers
- They don't have the capacity (not necessarily numbers, but capability wise) to execute a successful offensive any more, all of their offensives in the past 30 days ended in disaster and haven't moved anything, they have cost thousands in troops and around 100 units of good fighting equipment and hundreds of units of regular vehicular equipement
- A fighting force that gets cleaned out of every empty settlement they occupy and can't hold on to, and gets beaten back, outmaneuvered, encircled, annihilated and routed in every assault they conduct, isn't capable to hold the front line
- With a collapsed frontline, it enables the rebels to outmaneuver them in ways that weren't possible, or even imaginable, before. A month or two ago it seemed like a huge feat to close the narrow access to the units along the Russian border, but it wasn't a forward moving encirclement where they reached around the enemy. The regime command in Amrosievka (or whatever it's called, southwest of saur mogila) could as well have been Kiev, the rebeles were never going to make it there because they were on a pullback from all of their territories. Now they are executing a forward moving encirclement, reaching around and encircling all of the units posted on their southern flank that have been attacking the past 30 months. The danger is that they could end themselves like the regime excursions have, cut off and encircled. But anyway, that capability was unthinkable a month ago when it seemed like the regime would cut them to pieces and then take them out one by one. But they didn't achieve that and have lost thousands. Now they lack those thousands, to stop the rebel advance. The rebels have advanced towards places they have given up months ago. And it's not just the direction to Lisishansk/Severodonetsk, it's everywhere, north of Lugansk, south of Lugansk, south of Donetsk, west of Donetsk, north of Donetsk, south of Saur Mogila. Everywhere.
- I remember exactly a month ago when regime forces went around Debaltsevo to the countryside north of Shahtarsk, how certain people here cheered the end of it. I remember when the next days they attacked Shatarsk/Torez from north and south, how people posted maps with Donetsk almost encircled except for that little spot, and how they said that it's a matter of hours and days, with the whole countryside eas of donetsk colored in regime colors. Where is the color now? All gone, thousands dead and crippled, and the area is colored in rebel colors again. The same happened a few weeks ago when the regime forces went cross country around settlements to go towards Miusinsk, Krasny Luch and Antrasit. Where is that color now? All back like it was before. But at least hundreds gone. Stepanovka and Dimitrovka are in rebel hands again. Even Saur Mogila is in rebel hands again. How many lives were wasted by the regime to take that hill?
- The rebels and partizan units are already attacking the regime army far in their own rear, in places they haven't had the capacity to fight them before. They have in the past day stretched the front for over 100 km´to the south alone. And even more with everything else considered, the north has also stretched quite a bit. The southern front has completely crumbled. They couldn't hold the shorter front, and now the front is longer. You do the math. There is no realistic way they can retake what has been taken the last few days when they can't even hold on to villages or take single villages when there are enemies in them. All they can do now is to escape in a narrow corridor to not fall into encirclement, sitting it out and trying to defeat the encircling troops would be a bad idea, even when they get reinforcements that attack the encircling troops from the rear. The rebels have set themselves up in a position to attack Mariupol. That is a major development. And the regime has mostly opression squads in those cities, all their serious military units are at the front.
The result is visible today and will be even more visible in 5-15 days if it continues the way it went the last few days. So unless this is an intentional strategic move by the regime, to pull back itself to overstretch the enemy and draw him out of his positions to beat him more easily, it's game over for the regime. The only question that remains is how far back will the regime forces be routed before the regime calls for an agreement and "international" negotiation. And the other question after that is, if the rebels will be stupid enough to sit down with them when they are on the advance, after the regime in Kiev rejected any diplomatic solution when it had the upper hand. And this is happening exactly the day when they were parading around in Kiev with gear that their troops don't actually have at the front. And from what I've heard from Poroshenko and other regime heads the past few days, they sound like Hitler in his last weeks. But one thing is for sure, this is the end of the Ukraine like we've known it for the past 20 years.
I've written a post like this days ago, but decided not to send it. Turns out the impression that i had was true, only that I thought it would take them a few more weeks before they could advance to Amrievska (whatever it's called, you know what I mean, the HQ place) because the regime would mount a few more fake-out assaults to bind the rebels into the defensive to win time for...whatever... because it's not like some magical huge reinforcement force is going to show up out of thin air.
Even if this rebel offensive gets stopped, or routed, they will just fall back into their positions from a month ago and that's it. It's an indestructible meatgrinder. And the more Kiev throws into it, the worse the stability of the regime in the rest of the country will be. That is the whole point. Ukraine is done. The regime and system is falling apart. Porazhenko the billionaire has spent millions to play president and imperator, and it will be over soon, and in the end, it wil have cost thousands of lives, and will carry a heavy lesson for the people of Ukraine as soon as the vuvuzelas of regime propaganda that blames everything on Russia go silent. But after they fired ballistic missiles, 152mm artillery and rocket barrages into cities, I don't think there is a future in which those lands will subject themselves to rule from Kiev and Lviv again. If they have a brain, they will realize that no promise of "democracy" will be good enough. Because they already had that, remember? But real democracy and independence isn't the intended goal for the Ukraine, democracy should only serve to legitimize Western puppets in power. And as soon as the South-Easts candidate won the election and pursued an independent Ukrainian policy, fascist thugs from Lviv staged a violent coup and overthrew the government, and continued on to persecute anyone standing up for his democratic rights, by burning them alive, shooting them on the street like a dog, beating them into a pulp, imprisoning them, or bombing their cities and killing hundreds. So if the people in the south-east wake up from their 20 year long standby-mode and their brains start working in active instead of passive mode and they remember what the reality of the past 12 months has shown them, there will be no Ukraine any more. Even if Russia sides with Germany to push for a unified Ukraine, I can well imagine that it is unacceptable and unbearable for the people. They won't accept it as they can no longer live with those that attacked them in that way, and since it has been made clear to them that they have no democratic rights and that they would always be voiceless slaves ruled by a foreign puppet government that they have no say in, and if they try to get a voice they will be beaten, imprisoned or killed. Those are appaling conditions of a reality to live under, imaginable only in few, select, lawless third-world civil-war hellholes. Now they have been brought to Europe. Democracy™ and Freedom™.
On the other side of that, you have people who've had plenty of experience in fighting, movement, organization, aiming, effective fire, they are all highly motivated and willing to fight, and bolstered by new volunteers every day, with every regime shell and rocket that lands and murders someone's family or neighbours, and destroys someones home. And with the collapse of the frontline those numbers will grow further, no one wants to join in on the (seemingly) losing side, but a lot of people will run alongside the winning side chasing the fleeing enemy.
- Ukraine used up it's fanatics and volunteers
- They don't have the capacity (not necessarily numbers, but capability wise) to execute a successful offensive any more, all of their offensives in the past 30 days ended in disaster and haven't moved anything, they have cost thousands in troops and around 100 units of good fighting equipment and hundreds of units of regular vehicular equipement
- A fighting force that gets cleaned out of every empty settlement they occupy and can't hold on to, and gets beaten back, outmaneuvered, encircled, annihilated and routed in every assault they conduct, isn't capable to hold the front line
- With a collapsed frontline, it enables the rebels to outmaneuver them in ways that weren't possible, or even imaginable, before. A month or two ago it seemed like a huge feat to close the narrow access to the units along the Russian border, but it wasn't a forward moving encirclement where they reached around the enemy. The regime command in Amrosievka (or whatever it's called, southwest of saur mogila) could as well have been Kiev, the rebeles were never going to make it there because they were on a pullback from all of their territories. Now they are executing a forward moving encirclement, reaching around and encircling all of the units posted on their southern flank that have been attacking the past 30 months. The danger is that they could end themselves like the regime excursions have, cut off and encircled. But anyway, that capability was unthinkable a month ago when it seemed like the regime would cut them to pieces and then take them out one by one. But they didn't achieve that and have lost thousands. Now they lack those thousands, to stop the rebel advance. The rebels have advanced towards places they have given up months ago. And it's not just the direction to Lisishansk/Severodonetsk, it's everywhere, north of Lugansk, south of Lugansk, south of Donetsk, west of Donetsk, north of Donetsk, south of Saur Mogila. Everywhere.
- I remember exactly a month ago when regime forces went around Debaltsevo to the countryside north of Shahtarsk, how certain people here cheered the end of it. I remember when the next days they attacked Shatarsk/Torez from north and south, how people posted maps with Donetsk almost encircled except for that little spot, and how they said that it's a matter of hours and days, with the whole countryside eas of donetsk colored in regime colors. Where is the color now? All gone, thousands dead and crippled, and the area is colored in rebel colors again. The same happened a few weeks ago when the regime forces went cross country around settlements to go towards Miusinsk, Krasny Luch and Antrasit. Where is that color now? All back like it was before. But at least hundreds gone. Stepanovka and Dimitrovka are in rebel hands again. Even Saur Mogila is in rebel hands again. How many lives were wasted by the regime to take that hill?
- The rebels and partizan units are already attacking the regime army far in their own rear, in places they haven't had the capacity to fight them before. They have in the past day stretched the front for over 100 km´to the south alone. And even more with everything else considered, the north has also stretched quite a bit. The southern front has completely crumbled. They couldn't hold the shorter front, and now the front is longer. You do the math. There is no realistic way they can retake what has been taken the last few days when they can't even hold on to villages or take single villages when there are enemies in them. All they can do now is to escape in a narrow corridor to not fall into encirclement, sitting it out and trying to defeat the encircling troops would be a bad idea, even when they get reinforcements that attack the encircling troops from the rear. The rebels have set themselves up in a position to attack Mariupol. That is a major development. And the regime has mostly opression squads in those cities, all their serious military units are at the front.
The result is visible today and will be even more visible in 5-15 days if it continues the way it went the last few days. So unless this is an intentional strategic move by the regime, to pull back itself to overstretch the enemy and draw him out of his positions to beat him more easily, it's game over for the regime. The only question that remains is how far back will the regime forces be routed before the regime calls for an agreement and "international" negotiation. And the other question after that is, if the rebels will be stupid enough to sit down with them when they are on the advance, after the regime in Kiev rejected any diplomatic solution when it had the upper hand. And this is happening exactly the day when they were parading around in Kiev with gear that their troops don't actually have at the front. And from what I've heard from Poroshenko and other regime heads the past few days, they sound like Hitler in his last weeks. But one thing is for sure, this is the end of the Ukraine like we've known it for the past 20 years.
I've written a post like this days ago, but decided not to send it. Turns out the impression that i had was true, only that I thought it would take them a few more weeks before they could advance to Amrievska (whatever it's called, you know what I mean, the HQ place) because the regime would mount a few more fake-out assaults to bind the rebels into the defensive to win time for...whatever... because it's not like some magical huge reinforcement force is going to show up out of thin air.
Even if this rebel offensive gets stopped, or routed, they will just fall back into their positions from a month ago and that's it. It's an indestructible meatgrinder. And the more Kiev throws into it, the worse the stability of the regime in the rest of the country will be. That is the whole point. Ukraine is done. The regime and system is falling apart. Porazhenko the billionaire has spent millions to play president and imperator, and it will be over soon, and in the end, it wil have cost thousands of lives, and will carry a heavy lesson for the people of Ukraine as soon as the vuvuzelas of regime propaganda that blames everything on Russia go silent. But after they fired ballistic missiles, 152mm artillery and rocket barrages into cities, I don't think there is a future in which those lands will subject themselves to rule from Kiev and Lviv again. If they have a brain, they will realize that no promise of "democracy" will be good enough. Because they already had that, remember? But real democracy and independence isn't the intended goal for the Ukraine, democracy should only serve to legitimize Western puppets in power. And as soon as the South-Easts candidate won the election and pursued an independent Ukrainian policy, fascist thugs from Lviv staged a violent coup and overthrew the government, and continued on to persecute anyone standing up for his democratic rights, by burning them alive, shooting them on the street like a dog, beating them into a pulp, imprisoning them, or bombing their cities and killing hundreds. So if the people in the south-east wake up from their 20 year long standby-mode and their brains start working in active instead of passive mode and they remember what the reality of the past 12 months has shown them, there will be no Ukraine any more. Even if Russia sides with Germany to push for a unified Ukraine, I can well imagine that it is unacceptable and unbearable for the people. They won't accept it as they can no longer live with those that attacked them in that way, and since it has been made clear to them that they have no democratic rights and that they would always be voiceless slaves ruled by a foreign puppet government that they have no say in, and if they try to get a voice they will be beaten, imprisoned or killed. Those are appaling conditions of a reality to live under, imaginable only in few, select, lawless third-world civil-war hellholes. Now they have been brought to Europe. Democracy™ and Freedom™.
28-08-2014, 11:54 PM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...3393826452
NSC NEWS & ANALYSIS CENTER BRIEFING AT 14:00 AUGUST 28, 2014: HIGHLIGHTS
(1) The situation in the ATO zone has deteriorated in the last 24 hours. Counterattacks by units of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces and proxy armed groups continue in southeastern Donetsk Oblast. On August 27, Russian army took control of towns in Novoazovsk, Starobesheve and Amvrosiyivka Counties.
(2) On August 27, at around 11:00, the outskirts of Novoazovsk and the positions of Ukrainian Armed Forces were shelled by Grad MLRSs from Russian Territory. At 12:30, an attack began with two columns of RF military equipment including tanks, APCs and AFVs, which entered Ukraine from Veselo-Voznesensk and Maksimov in Rostov Oblast, RF. By orders of the ATO commander, the combined ATO, MIA and State Border Service troops retreated. Closer to evening, the two Russian convoys entered Novoazovsk.
(3) Near the border village of Kholodne, a Russian Uragan MLRS was reported to have been set up.
(4) Clashes continue in the suburbs of Luhansk, near Novosvitlivka and Khriashchuvate, in Donetsk and in Ilovaisk, Mariyinka, Starobesheve and Olenivka in Volnovakha County, Donetsk Oblast.
(5) In the villages of Perevalsk, Zorynsk, Maloivanivka, Mala Fashchivka, Verhuliyivka, and Rozsypne, reinforcements have arrived for the terrorists and these settlements are being prepared for long-term defense.
(6) The Russian Armed Forces and their proxies are grouping for a major assault in the direction of Shakhtarsk-Ilovaisk.
(7) A medical team of Russian citizens arrived at the Krasnodon Central Municipal Hospital with medical equipment, after which a massive number of wounded and dead militants were brought into the facility.
(8) The situation in occupied Crimea is growing tense. On August 27, Ukrainian border patrols arrested a diversionary unit trying to break through to the mainland from the peninsula.
(9) The State Border Service has put 6 naval tactical groups of the Marine Guard on the Azov Sea to provide additional coverage on the coastline.
(10) Civilians in the parts of Luhansk controlled by Russian proxies, there are no water, power or communication services. In Donetsk, 5 districts have been left without power.
(11) Over the last 24 hours, State Emergency Service pyrotechnical teams swept 12 hectares and removed 195 explosive devices in Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts.
(12) Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said there was clear evidence that Russian regular military units are on the ground in eastern Ukraine. Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird declared that it was necessary to clearly respond to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkiavicius called on the European Union and other international organizations to consider the option of providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Source: National Security Council of Ukraine briefing at 14:00 August 28,2014
Prof Cees J. Hamelink nam afscheid als Hoogleraar van de UvA. Steve Brown was er ook bij. Professor Cees Hamink een Must voor iedere journalist.
Oekraïne wint op alle fronten en vernietigd Russisch militair konvooi meldt de Oorlogs-Telegraaf.
Wat is het verschil tussen Iran Air 655 en KL4103/MH17. Mark Rutte en de Hysterische Media De Telegraaf en de Staats-NOS.
( door Cees Hamelink)
Dear Mr. President Putin,
Please accept our apologies on behalf of a great many people here in the Netherlands for our Government and our Media. The facts concerning MH17 are twisted to defame you and your country.
We are powerless onlookers, as we witness how the Western Nations, led by the United States, accuse Russia of crimes they commit themselves more than anybody else. We reject the double standards that are used for Russia and the West. In our societies, sufficient evidence is required for a conviction. The way you and your Nation are convicted for ‘crimes’ without evidence, is ruthless and despicable.
You have saved us from a conflict in Syria that could have escalated into a World War. The mass killing of innocent Syrian civilians through gassing by ‘Al--‐Qaeda’ terrorists, trained and armed by the US and paid for by Saudi Arabia, was blamed on Assad. In doing so, the West hoped public opinion would turn against Assad, paving the way for an attack on Syria.
Not long after this, Western forces have built up, trained and armed an ‘opposition’ in the Ukraine, to prepare a coup against the legitimate Government in Kiev. The putschists taking over were quickly recognized by Western Governments. They were provided with loans from our tax money to prop their new Government up.
The people of the Crimea did not agree with this and showed this with peaceful demonstrations. Anonymous snipers and violence by Ukrainian troops turned these demonstrations into demands for independence from Kiev. Whether you support these separatist movements is immaterial, considering the blatant Imperialism of the West.
Russia is wrongly accused, without evidence or investigation, of delivering the weapons systems that allegedly brought down MH17. For this reason Western Governments claim they have a right to economically pressure Russia.
We, awake citizens of the West, who see the lies and machinations of our Governments, wish to offer you our apologies for what is done in our name. It’s unfortunately true, that our media have lost all independence and are just mouthpieces for the Powers that Be. Because of this, Western people tend to have a warped view of reality and are unable to hold their politicians to account.
Our hopes are focused on your wisdom. We want Peace. We see that Western Governments do not serve the people but are working towards a New World Order. The destruction of sovereign nations and the killing of millions of innocent people is, seemingly, a price worth paying for them, to achieve this goal.
We, the people of the Netherlands, want Peace and Justice, also for and with Russia. We hope to make clear that the Dutch Government speaks for itself only. We pray our efforts will help to diffuse the rising tensions between our Nations.
Sincerely,
Professor Cees Hamelink
Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin for Lies on MH17, Syria, Ukraine… | Steven Brown: "I have seen another world. Sometimes I think it was just my imagination."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzdgMyMC1MY
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-live.html
NSC NEWS & ANALYSIS CENTER BRIEFING AT 14:00 AUGUST 28, 2014: HIGHLIGHTS
(1) The situation in the ATO zone has deteriorated in the last 24 hours. Counterattacks by units of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces and proxy armed groups continue in southeastern Donetsk Oblast. On August 27, Russian army took control of towns in Novoazovsk, Starobesheve and Amvrosiyivka Counties.
(2) On August 27, at around 11:00, the outskirts of Novoazovsk and the positions of Ukrainian Armed Forces were shelled by Grad MLRSs from Russian Territory. At 12:30, an attack began with two columns of RF military equipment including tanks, APCs and AFVs, which entered Ukraine from Veselo-Voznesensk and Maksimov in Rostov Oblast, RF. By orders of the ATO commander, the combined ATO, MIA and State Border Service troops retreated. Closer to evening, the two Russian convoys entered Novoazovsk.
(3) Near the border village of Kholodne, a Russian Uragan MLRS was reported to have been set up.
(4) Clashes continue in the suburbs of Luhansk, near Novosvitlivka and Khriashchuvate, in Donetsk and in Ilovaisk, Mariyinka, Starobesheve and Olenivka in Volnovakha County, Donetsk Oblast.
(5) In the villages of Perevalsk, Zorynsk, Maloivanivka, Mala Fashchivka, Verhuliyivka, and Rozsypne, reinforcements have arrived for the terrorists and these settlements are being prepared for long-term defense.
(6) The Russian Armed Forces and their proxies are grouping for a major assault in the direction of Shakhtarsk-Ilovaisk.
(7) A medical team of Russian citizens arrived at the Krasnodon Central Municipal Hospital with medical equipment, after which a massive number of wounded and dead militants were brought into the facility.
(8) The situation in occupied Crimea is growing tense. On August 27, Ukrainian border patrols arrested a diversionary unit trying to break through to the mainland from the peninsula.
(9) The State Border Service has put 6 naval tactical groups of the Marine Guard on the Azov Sea to provide additional coverage on the coastline.
(10) Civilians in the parts of Luhansk controlled by Russian proxies, there are no water, power or communication services. In Donetsk, 5 districts have been left without power.
(11) Over the last 24 hours, State Emergency Service pyrotechnical teams swept 12 hectares and removed 195 explosive devices in Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts.
(12) Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said there was clear evidence that Russian regular military units are on the ground in eastern Ukraine. Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird declared that it was necessary to clearly respond to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkiavicius called on the European Union and other international organizations to consider the option of providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Source: National Security Council of Ukraine briefing at 14:00 August 28,2014
Prof Cees J. Hamelink nam afscheid als Hoogleraar van de UvA. Steve Brown was er ook bij. Professor Cees Hamink een Must voor iedere journalist.
Oekraïne wint op alle fronten en vernietigd Russisch militair konvooi meldt de Oorlogs-Telegraaf.
Wat is het verschil tussen Iran Air 655 en KL4103/MH17. Mark Rutte en de Hysterische Media De Telegraaf en de Staats-NOS.
( door Cees Hamelink)
Dear Mr. President Putin,
Please accept our apologies on behalf of a great many people here in the Netherlands for our Government and our Media. The facts concerning MH17 are twisted to defame you and your country.
We are powerless onlookers, as we witness how the Western Nations, led by the United States, accuse Russia of crimes they commit themselves more than anybody else. We reject the double standards that are used for Russia and the West. In our societies, sufficient evidence is required for a conviction. The way you and your Nation are convicted for ‘crimes’ without evidence, is ruthless and despicable.
You have saved us from a conflict in Syria that could have escalated into a World War. The mass killing of innocent Syrian civilians through gassing by ‘Al--‐Qaeda’ terrorists, trained and armed by the US and paid for by Saudi Arabia, was blamed on Assad. In doing so, the West hoped public opinion would turn against Assad, paving the way for an attack on Syria.
Not long after this, Western forces have built up, trained and armed an ‘opposition’ in the Ukraine, to prepare a coup against the legitimate Government in Kiev. The putschists taking over were quickly recognized by Western Governments. They were provided with loans from our tax money to prop their new Government up.
The people of the Crimea did not agree with this and showed this with peaceful demonstrations. Anonymous snipers and violence by Ukrainian troops turned these demonstrations into demands for independence from Kiev. Whether you support these separatist movements is immaterial, considering the blatant Imperialism of the West.
Russia is wrongly accused, without evidence or investigation, of delivering the weapons systems that allegedly brought down MH17. For this reason Western Governments claim they have a right to economically pressure Russia.
We, awake citizens of the West, who see the lies and machinations of our Governments, wish to offer you our apologies for what is done in our name. It’s unfortunately true, that our media have lost all independence and are just mouthpieces for the Powers that Be. Because of this, Western people tend to have a warped view of reality and are unable to hold their politicians to account.
Our hopes are focused on your wisdom. We want Peace. We see that Western Governments do not serve the people but are working towards a New World Order. The destruction of sovereign nations and the killing of millions of innocent people is, seemingly, a price worth paying for them, to achieve this goal.
We, the people of the Netherlands, want Peace and Justice, also for and with Russia. We hope to make clear that the Dutch Government speaks for itself only. We pray our efforts will help to diffuse the rising tensions between our Nations.
Sincerely,
Professor Cees Hamelink
Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin for Lies on MH17, Syria, Ukraine… | Steven Brown: "I have seen another world. Sometimes I think it was just my imagination."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzdgMyMC1MY
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-live.html
29-08-2014, 01:09 PM
NATO must stand up to Putin’s threat to invade Ukraine
By Kurt Volker and Erik Brattberg August 28 at 8:02 PM
Kurt Volker is a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University. Erik Brattberg is a visiting fellow at the McCain Institute from the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.
Vladimir Putin is placing a cynical bet that he can invade Ukraine just one week before a NATO summit — and that NATO will do nothing to stop him. The alliance must prove him wrong.
Despite sharp words from Brussels, Washington, London and Berlin, the Russian president believes that NATO lacks the will to challenge his dismemberment of Ukraine. By sending troops, tanks and artillery directly into the Ukrainian fighting, Putin is making a point: He will fight for Ukraine, and NATO will not. He is calling NATO’s bluff.
The Western response will be read carefully from Kiev to Tallinn to Moscow. For the sake of Ukraine’s integrity as a country, for future European security and for NATO’s credibility as a defense organization, NATO leaders need to make some tough decisions and push back militarily against Russia.
NATO has already taken significant, positive military steps concerning its members in the east — particularly Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. This is important: The alliance’s only obligation is to collective defense. That must be sacrosanct. NATO has increased air policing over the Baltics, expanded exercises, promised to strengthen its defense planning and decided to deploy ground forces temporarily in Eastern Europe. These strong steps will cause Russia to think twice before expanding its aggression from Ukraine to NATO member states.
However, drawing such a bright line around NATO territory is being read by Putin as a signal that non-members such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are — literally — up for grabs. With Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine in the open, NATO needs to focus not only on defending alliance members but also on crisis management and projecting power beyond NATO territory.
To prove Putin wrong, NATO should take the following steps at its Wales summit:
●Provide direct military and intelligence support to the Ukrainian government. This means advisers, trainers, equipment and the possibility of direct reinforcement using NATO air and ground capabilities. Anti-tank weapons and air-defense systems should be in the mix. The most critical need is tactical: helping Ukraine use its own equipment and troops to reestablish a border with Russia, isolate separatists and avoid firefights to the greatest extent possible.
●Cancel all allied sales of military and dual-use equipment to Russia. The most notorious case is the French naval assault vessels — Mistral and Sebastopol — but other allies, including Britain and Germany, have yet to scrap all of their sales to Russia. As for the French ships: NATO should buy them for itself using its infrastructure budget and deploy them as a naval component to the NATO Response Force.
●Impose further sanctions — including on Gazprom and its leadership. Russia believes it has the upper hand in deterring strong Western action by threatening energy supplies. Europe needs to call Russia’s bluff, showing that it can survive an energy showdown better than Russia can. The United States and Europe should also give a renewed push to European energy security efforts — including speeding delivery of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, and establishing a joint U.S.-E.U. financing mechanism to spur completion of LNG terminals and pipeline interconnectors.
●Establish a multinational NATO military presence on the territory of Poland and the Baltic states. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said this week that such action may be taken. It is critical that NATO prevent expansion of Russian aggression *— and the best deterrence is preventive deployment. Any complaints that such a step violates the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act are negated by the first clause of NATO’s undertaking: “In the current and foreseeable security environment.” Russia’s actions have fundamentally changed the security environment foreseen in 1997.
●Reaffirm NATO’s commitment to building a Europe whole and free and at peace. Montenegro is ready for NATO membership now. Macedonia should be invited based on an urgent resolution of the dispute regarding its name. Finland and Sweden should be told they are welcome any time. And NATO should renew its pledge to work with Ukraine, Georgia and other partners on reforms necessary to help them qualify for membership. NATO must not accept a Russian diktat over the affairs of neighboring states.
Although it did not start out this way, the upcoming summit in Wales may be the most important NATO gathering since Prague in 2002, when NATO added seven members. The signal the organization sends next week — whether it will stand up for European security or concede to Russian aggression — will ripple through Europe for years to come.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3
By Kurt Volker and Erik Brattberg August 28 at 8:02 PM
Kurt Volker is a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University. Erik Brattberg is a visiting fellow at the McCain Institute from the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.
Vladimir Putin is placing a cynical bet that he can invade Ukraine just one week before a NATO summit — and that NATO will do nothing to stop him. The alliance must prove him wrong.
Despite sharp words from Brussels, Washington, London and Berlin, the Russian president believes that NATO lacks the will to challenge his dismemberment of Ukraine. By sending troops, tanks and artillery directly into the Ukrainian fighting, Putin is making a point: He will fight for Ukraine, and NATO will not. He is calling NATO’s bluff.
The Western response will be read carefully from Kiev to Tallinn to Moscow. For the sake of Ukraine’s integrity as a country, for future European security and for NATO’s credibility as a defense organization, NATO leaders need to make some tough decisions and push back militarily against Russia.
NATO has already taken significant, positive military steps concerning its members in the east — particularly Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. This is important: The alliance’s only obligation is to collective defense. That must be sacrosanct. NATO has increased air policing over the Baltics, expanded exercises, promised to strengthen its defense planning and decided to deploy ground forces temporarily in Eastern Europe. These strong steps will cause Russia to think twice before expanding its aggression from Ukraine to NATO member states.
However, drawing such a bright line around NATO territory is being read by Putin as a signal that non-members such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are — literally — up for grabs. With Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine in the open, NATO needs to focus not only on defending alliance members but also on crisis management and projecting power beyond NATO territory.
To prove Putin wrong, NATO should take the following steps at its Wales summit:
●Provide direct military and intelligence support to the Ukrainian government. This means advisers, trainers, equipment and the possibility of direct reinforcement using NATO air and ground capabilities. Anti-tank weapons and air-defense systems should be in the mix. The most critical need is tactical: helping Ukraine use its own equipment and troops to reestablish a border with Russia, isolate separatists and avoid firefights to the greatest extent possible.
●Cancel all allied sales of military and dual-use equipment to Russia. The most notorious case is the French naval assault vessels — Mistral and Sebastopol — but other allies, including Britain and Germany, have yet to scrap all of their sales to Russia. As for the French ships: NATO should buy them for itself using its infrastructure budget and deploy them as a naval component to the NATO Response Force.
●Impose further sanctions — including on Gazprom and its leadership. Russia believes it has the upper hand in deterring strong Western action by threatening energy supplies. Europe needs to call Russia’s bluff, showing that it can survive an energy showdown better than Russia can. The United States and Europe should also give a renewed push to European energy security efforts — including speeding delivery of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, and establishing a joint U.S.-E.U. financing mechanism to spur completion of LNG terminals and pipeline interconnectors.
●Establish a multinational NATO military presence on the territory of Poland and the Baltic states. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said this week that such action may be taken. It is critical that NATO prevent expansion of Russian aggression *— and the best deterrence is preventive deployment. Any complaints that such a step violates the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act are negated by the first clause of NATO’s undertaking: “In the current and foreseeable security environment.” Russia’s actions have fundamentally changed the security environment foreseen in 1997.
●Reaffirm NATO’s commitment to building a Europe whole and free and at peace. Montenegro is ready for NATO membership now. Macedonia should be invited based on an urgent resolution of the dispute regarding its name. Finland and Sweden should be told they are welcome any time. And NATO should renew its pledge to work with Ukraine, Georgia and other partners on reforms necessary to help them qualify for membership. NATO must not accept a Russian diktat over the affairs of neighboring states.
Although it did not start out this way, the upcoming summit in Wales may be the most important NATO gathering since Prague in 2002, when NATO added seven members. The signal the organization sends next week — whether it will stand up for European security or concede to Russian aggression — will ripple through Europe for years to come.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3
30-08-2014, 02:27 PM
30-08-2014, 06:55 PM
US may give Ukraine status of special ally outside NATO — Russian MP
World August 29, 20:35 UTC+4
State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Alexei Pushkov says NATO rules forbid to admit a country that has territorial disputes with other states
Alexei Pushkov
Alexei Pushkov© ITAR-TASS/Sergei Fadeichev
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
NATO sets up 4 trust funds to finance Ukraine army reforms
MOSCOW, August 29. /ITAR-TASS/. State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Alexei Pushkov said on Friday the United States might give Ukraine the status of a special ally outside NATO. “Ukraine does not meet NATO criteria for several reasons,” Pushkov said.
NATO has never admitted a country that is a state of armed conflict with another country. “NATO rules forbid to admit a country that has territorial disputes with other states,” he added.
“If the Alliance is committed to this criterion, this will be one more fact that will close Ukraine’s path to official membership in NATO,” Pushkov said.
Another thing is that other forms of cooperation exist, he said. “Now Ukraine is asking the US to give it the status of special ally outside NATO. I believe that it is more real today.”
As a whole, prospects for preparing Ukraine’s accession to NATO will depend on the balance of forces inside the Alliance because many European countries consider this fact a threat to their security, Pushkov said.
“Today Ukraine is a state that does not control most of its own territory. Ukraine has embarked on a path of confrontation with Russia, and many European countries interpret the accession of such country as a potential threat to their own security,” he said.
World August 29, 20:35 UTC+4
State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Alexei Pushkov says NATO rules forbid to admit a country that has territorial disputes with other states
Alexei Pushkov
Alexei Pushkov© ITAR-TASS/Sergei Fadeichev
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
NATO sets up 4 trust funds to finance Ukraine army reforms
MOSCOW, August 29. /ITAR-TASS/. State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Alexei Pushkov said on Friday the United States might give Ukraine the status of a special ally outside NATO. “Ukraine does not meet NATO criteria for several reasons,” Pushkov said.
NATO has never admitted a country that is a state of armed conflict with another country. “NATO rules forbid to admit a country that has territorial disputes with other states,” he added.
“If the Alliance is committed to this criterion, this will be one more fact that will close Ukraine’s path to official membership in NATO,” Pushkov said.
Another thing is that other forms of cooperation exist, he said. “Now Ukraine is asking the US to give it the status of special ally outside NATO. I believe that it is more real today.”
As a whole, prospects for preparing Ukraine’s accession to NATO will depend on the balance of forces inside the Alliance because many European countries consider this fact a threat to their security, Pushkov said.
“Today Ukraine is a state that does not control most of its own territory. Ukraine has embarked on a path of confrontation with Russia, and many European countries interpret the accession of such country as a potential threat to their own security,” he said.
31-08-2014, 04:12 AM
We can observe the connection between oil, gas and NATO in the Ukraine conflict in its purest form”
Interview with Dr Daniele Ganser
The Ukraine conflict is about the next step of NATO extension,according to the NATO expert Daniele Ganser. Germany has to go along, as the Americans have the supreme command and aim at avoiding the emergence of a new Moscow-Berlin axis. To attain this end the United States are playing the EU countries off against each other – in order to be able to further control them.
NATO is the largest and most influential military alliance of all times. The “Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten” (German Economic News) interviewed the historian and NATO expert Daniele Ganser about NATO’s structure, Germany’s role in the organisation, its influence in the EU and its role in the Ukraine conflict.
Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten: The Dane Rasmussen will soon retire as NATO Secretary General. The Norwegian Stoltenberg will probably be his successor. What is the Europeans’ influence in NATO according to your opinion?
Dr Daniele Ganser: I think the influence of the Europeans in NATO is small, because the NATO is led by the United States. This becomes obvious in that the Europeans are always allowed to take the role of the Secretary General, and he appears quite often in the media in Europe. That’s why one gets the impression, the Secretary General is the most important person of the NATO. But that’s not true! The SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) is a much more influential post in NATO and is always taken by an American General. This military command is far more powerful than the public post of the Secretary General. The former US President Nixon said once: “NATO is the only international organisation that works. “And that is because it is a military organisation and the United States are at the top.”
Through which channels does NATO enforce its interests in the EU?
In all NATO member states NATO has its NATO ambassadors. The ambassadors are sent by each country to get information, what NATO wants next. The channels work such that NATO – and mainly United States – say: That’s what things are like and now you have to do this and that. At least it was like this at the time of 9/11 and the war against Afghanistan. The Europeans simply obey most of the time. They never said: We need to have an own development. A common EU foreign and security policy does not really work. They are always a bit torn between the two sides: Should we go with the Americans into Iraq? The British did it but the French did not. Or shall we bomb the OPEC country Libya together with the Americans? The French did, the Germans didn’t. The United States are very well able to play the different European countries off. At the moment they play Germany off against Russia, of course in the American interest. This is the old system of “divide et impera” – “divide and control”. It is not Washington’s goal that the EU and Russia cooperate and establish a large economic area, which has the largest oil and gas reserves. That would indeed not be in the interest of the United States.
Due to the lack of transparency, it is difficult to figure out how the funding of NATO works in detail. Recently Dutch parliamentarians had to realize this. Do you know anything definite concerning NATO’s financing?
No, because the NATO is actually not a transparent organisation. I share this frustration of Dutch parliamentarians, because I myself tried to elicit information about NATO’s Secret Armies. One simply ignored my questions and did not respond at all. Some people think that NATO is a democratic and transparent organisation. But it is not. It is a military organisation that always tries to guard its secrets. The Pentagon’s budget is ultimately relevant for the financing, and it amounts to about $700 billion annually, or about $2 billion a day. Then of course the question of whether a Pentagon-day is also a NATO-day, or how they allocate this. But these are accounting operations, and you can reckon it either way.
What is NATO’s role in the Ukraine conflict?
I am of the opinion that the conflict in the Ukraine concerns the NATO essentially as well as the gas ressources. NATO has been moving eastward since 1990. The first step was taking the GDR off the Warsaw Pact and incorporating it in NATO. At that time Gorbachev’s consent was needed. This fusion of the FRG and the GDR – which is very valuable and I welcome very much – was only possible because Russia approved the admission of the reunited Germany to NATO. But the Russians also said that they do not want that NATO continues to extend further. And Gorbachev said that NATO had assured that towards him.
But NATO has not kept its word. NATO took Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on board as well as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This was even followed by Albania and Croatia. If you look at it from a Russian perspective, NATO hasn’t kept its word; and now it’s trying to fit in the still missing building blocks – Ukraine and Georgia – and in order to encircle Russia.
The Western media always claim: the Russians are completely irrational and behave weird. But, in fact, they behave like a chess player, who is losing step by step – here a tower, there a knight and there a pawn. The Russians feel threatened. And this expansion of NATO is not even mentioned in the Western media and not even taken note of. You can communicate this easily, by taking a NATO map at hand and comparing 1990 and 2014.
Enlargement of NATO from 1990 to 2009.
(Graphics: Current Concerns/roho, 2014)
Is NATO only aiming at the military encirclement of Russia, or is it out for the country’s resources, as well?
That’s the same thing. Ranking first in the world’s oil production are Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Russians produce about 10 million barrels per day. The Saudis produce also around 10 million barrels per day. Area-wise Russia is the largest country in the world and has huge natural gas reserves. The battle for the global oil and natural gas reserves is also the struggle about Russia. Putin does definitely not want the Ukraine to join NATO. From the Russian point of view, the downfall of Yanukovich was orchestrated by Western intelligence agencies. To see it the way Putin does or any other way, it doesn’t matter. But from his point of view, it is now legitimate to say: When the winter comes, I can switch off your gas. Or I can say: You owe me more money for that gas. In other words, we can observe this connection between oil, gas and NATO in its purest form in the Ukraine conflict.
What evidence is there that the upheaval in Ukraine was orchestrated by Western intelligence services?
What we know so far is this: 2014 is the year when Yanukovych was dismissed and Poroshenko was installed. This is a fact. And if we look a bit closer, we come to the finer points. When is he deposed? He is deposed in February 2014. And now we come to the crux of it, namely the escalation of protests by the Maidan snipers. It’s interesting to note: According to the information I have – the snipers shot both protesters and police officers. And that’s very unusual. It is quite possible that it was an intelligence action which was to throw the Ukraine into chaos. What we have as an evidence for this is the phone call between Urmas Paet, Foreign Minister of Estonia, and Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative. The conversation reveals, that not Yanukovych, but someone from the new coalition was behind the snipers of the Maidan. The new coalition is the group around Klitschko, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko, which came to power after the overthrow.
In case it turns out that Poroshenko has come to power by snipers, we envisage a government coup without understanding it. It went so quickly, that we really have to admit: we are too stupid to really understand it. However, it could be that Putin is less stupid and has seen it the right way. But I am not saying you should blindly believe Putin, because he has his agenda as well. It’s a question we will have to answer in economic history and in contemporary history: Is this an event such as 1953, when the US intelligence service CIA and British intelligence MI-6 overthrew the Government of Mossadegh in Iran, because he had nationalized the oil? At that time they had disguised agents as alleged terrorists, who carried out attacks and spread chaos across the country. It is called “strategy of tension”, aiming at so intentionally creating chaos and tensions to cause the fall of a government; this is something that works, which is historically demonstrated.
NATO increasingly performs maneuvres in recent months. Because of one of these NATO maneuvres, even air traffic control failed in several European countries. Is this only military presence or is there more behind the troop movements?
Just generally, I can say that on the side of Russia as well as on the side of the NATO military presence is being increased. However, contrary to the belief of many commentators, I think we are not yet facing the third world war like in the days of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. But we are in a situation of deep distrust. Moscow and Washington distrust each other, and Berlin is caught in between.
There are several key NATO bases, including the US airbase Ramstein and the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart in Germany. What role does Germany currently and in the future play in NATO’s strategy?
Germany is a junior partner of NATO, because the United States lead the NATO. From the perspective of the United States, Germany is an occupied country. This hurts of course, if you read that as a German reader, but that’s the present situation, nevertheless. We have American bases in Germany and the US military intelligence service NSA monitors the mobile of Chancellor Merkel. And if the Americans say: Let’s go to the Hindu-Kush, then the German soldiers have to go out and shoot Afghans, although they never had a problem with them previously. That means, unfortunately, Germany has taken over the position of a vassal. And Germany has a hard time, to liberate itself from this position.
The reason is a very simple one: the United States are the empire. The empire is the largest economy in the world measured by the GDP. That is the US. It owns most of all aircraft carriers and the most powerful air force, by number, type, and modernity. That’s the United States. It owns the world reserve currency. That’s the dollar, so once again the United States. And finally the United States have most military bases worldwide, not only Guantánamo, Diego Garcia and Afghanistan, but also Ramstein, etc. Also important: The empire dominates the media and ensures favourable reporting. And this is the position of Germany: It is located in a subordinate position within the American empire, and most German media don’t dare to state that openly. By the way, Switzerland is not much better off. The US empire exerts pressure on Switzerland, but at least we are not a member of NATO and have not any American military bases – we Swiss do not want this.
But Switzerland, as well as Finland, is member of a NATO affiliate organization …
… the “Partnership for Peace”, yes. Switzerland is severely criticized, and rightly so, because we definitely don’t want to become a NATO member. It is true, some politicians want this indeed, but the Swiss population does not. If there was a vote, it would be rejected by a majority, because the Swiss population is against the NATO aggression. Switzerland’s opinion towards the United States has changed greatly to the negative, in recent years.
The United States are perceived here as more hypocritical the more the longer, because they cause economic wars worldwide. They have monitored the data transfer of the world – especially the SWIFT data – with the help of the US intelligence organisation NSA and use this data against the Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse. They are bad-mouthing the Swiss, because Swiss banks have in fact helped American citizens to evade taxes, what was wrong. At the same time the Swiss watch but with astonishment that the tax evasion in the United States – so in Delaware or in England by the trusts – is still possible. In this respect the Swiss don’t understand that the United States morally show off against tax evasion, but leave their own loopholes open. Therefore, the mood here is increasingly anti-American.
11 September 2001 plays a key role regarding NATO, because at that time it came to the mutual defense clause under Article 5. Is the mutual defense clause still in force?
This is an interesting question. You would have to ask NATO itself. There was a big debate about after 9/11. Anyway, the mutual defense guarantee was proclaimed after 9/11, that is clear. The Americans came over to Europe and said: That’s what it is like, and now here we go to the Hindu Kush. Then, 9/11 was a certain story that you either could swallow or not. It was the first time that the mutual defense guarantee in the history was invoked. This shows the role of the empire, as well. It takes the right to interpret historical events its own way. The 11 September attacks are disputed among historians – there are various opinions on the subject. But as soon a historian expresses his own view, he is shouted down as a conspiracy theorist. And this means that we are not allowed to say: Just a moment, there are question marks concerning the activation of Article 5. NATO doesn’t want to talk about it. It doesn’t want any critical discussion about 9/11 and about operation Gladio. It’s just trying to suppress these issues. But I think they will fail in the long-term, because we live in the information age. The longer, the more people are able to develop different perspectives on an issue, and that is a good thing. •
Dr Daniele Ganser is historian and peace researcher. He explores the topics of energy, war and peace from a geopolitical perspective. His focus thereby is international contemporary history since 1945, intelligence and special forces, covert warfare and geostrategy as well as peak oil and resource wars. His book “NATO’s Secret Armies – Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe” was published in 2005 and translated into ten languages.
Source: Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten DWN 29.7.2014, (http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten....-sicht-der- usa-ist-Deutschland-ein-besetztes-land)
Interview with Dr Daniele Ganser
The Ukraine conflict is about the next step of NATO extension,according to the NATO expert Daniele Ganser. Germany has to go along, as the Americans have the supreme command and aim at avoiding the emergence of a new Moscow-Berlin axis. To attain this end the United States are playing the EU countries off against each other – in order to be able to further control them.
NATO is the largest and most influential military alliance of all times. The “Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten” (German Economic News) interviewed the historian and NATO expert Daniele Ganser about NATO’s structure, Germany’s role in the organisation, its influence in the EU and its role in the Ukraine conflict.
Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten: The Dane Rasmussen will soon retire as NATO Secretary General. The Norwegian Stoltenberg will probably be his successor. What is the Europeans’ influence in NATO according to your opinion?
Dr Daniele Ganser: I think the influence of the Europeans in NATO is small, because the NATO is led by the United States. This becomes obvious in that the Europeans are always allowed to take the role of the Secretary General, and he appears quite often in the media in Europe. That’s why one gets the impression, the Secretary General is the most important person of the NATO. But that’s not true! The SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) is a much more influential post in NATO and is always taken by an American General. This military command is far more powerful than the public post of the Secretary General. The former US President Nixon said once: “NATO is the only international organisation that works. “And that is because it is a military organisation and the United States are at the top.”
Through which channels does NATO enforce its interests in the EU?
In all NATO member states NATO has its NATO ambassadors. The ambassadors are sent by each country to get information, what NATO wants next. The channels work such that NATO – and mainly United States – say: That’s what things are like and now you have to do this and that. At least it was like this at the time of 9/11 and the war against Afghanistan. The Europeans simply obey most of the time. They never said: We need to have an own development. A common EU foreign and security policy does not really work. They are always a bit torn between the two sides: Should we go with the Americans into Iraq? The British did it but the French did not. Or shall we bomb the OPEC country Libya together with the Americans? The French did, the Germans didn’t. The United States are very well able to play the different European countries off. At the moment they play Germany off against Russia, of course in the American interest. This is the old system of “divide et impera” – “divide and control”. It is not Washington’s goal that the EU and Russia cooperate and establish a large economic area, which has the largest oil and gas reserves. That would indeed not be in the interest of the United States.
Due to the lack of transparency, it is difficult to figure out how the funding of NATO works in detail. Recently Dutch parliamentarians had to realize this. Do you know anything definite concerning NATO’s financing?
No, because the NATO is actually not a transparent organisation. I share this frustration of Dutch parliamentarians, because I myself tried to elicit information about NATO’s Secret Armies. One simply ignored my questions and did not respond at all. Some people think that NATO is a democratic and transparent organisation. But it is not. It is a military organisation that always tries to guard its secrets. The Pentagon’s budget is ultimately relevant for the financing, and it amounts to about $700 billion annually, or about $2 billion a day. Then of course the question of whether a Pentagon-day is also a NATO-day, or how they allocate this. But these are accounting operations, and you can reckon it either way.
What is NATO’s role in the Ukraine conflict?
I am of the opinion that the conflict in the Ukraine concerns the NATO essentially as well as the gas ressources. NATO has been moving eastward since 1990. The first step was taking the GDR off the Warsaw Pact and incorporating it in NATO. At that time Gorbachev’s consent was needed. This fusion of the FRG and the GDR – which is very valuable and I welcome very much – was only possible because Russia approved the admission of the reunited Germany to NATO. But the Russians also said that they do not want that NATO continues to extend further. And Gorbachev said that NATO had assured that towards him.
But NATO has not kept its word. NATO took Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on board as well as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This was even followed by Albania and Croatia. If you look at it from a Russian perspective, NATO hasn’t kept its word; and now it’s trying to fit in the still missing building blocks – Ukraine and Georgia – and in order to encircle Russia.
The Western media always claim: the Russians are completely irrational and behave weird. But, in fact, they behave like a chess player, who is losing step by step – here a tower, there a knight and there a pawn. The Russians feel threatened. And this expansion of NATO is not even mentioned in the Western media and not even taken note of. You can communicate this easily, by taking a NATO map at hand and comparing 1990 and 2014.
Enlargement of NATO from 1990 to 2009.
(Graphics: Current Concerns/roho, 2014)
Is NATO only aiming at the military encirclement of Russia, or is it out for the country’s resources, as well?
That’s the same thing. Ranking first in the world’s oil production are Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Russians produce about 10 million barrels per day. The Saudis produce also around 10 million barrels per day. Area-wise Russia is the largest country in the world and has huge natural gas reserves. The battle for the global oil and natural gas reserves is also the struggle about Russia. Putin does definitely not want the Ukraine to join NATO. From the Russian point of view, the downfall of Yanukovich was orchestrated by Western intelligence agencies. To see it the way Putin does or any other way, it doesn’t matter. But from his point of view, it is now legitimate to say: When the winter comes, I can switch off your gas. Or I can say: You owe me more money for that gas. In other words, we can observe this connection between oil, gas and NATO in its purest form in the Ukraine conflict.
What evidence is there that the upheaval in Ukraine was orchestrated by Western intelligence services?
What we know so far is this: 2014 is the year when Yanukovych was dismissed and Poroshenko was installed. This is a fact. And if we look a bit closer, we come to the finer points. When is he deposed? He is deposed in February 2014. And now we come to the crux of it, namely the escalation of protests by the Maidan snipers. It’s interesting to note: According to the information I have – the snipers shot both protesters and police officers. And that’s very unusual. It is quite possible that it was an intelligence action which was to throw the Ukraine into chaos. What we have as an evidence for this is the phone call between Urmas Paet, Foreign Minister of Estonia, and Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative. The conversation reveals, that not Yanukovych, but someone from the new coalition was behind the snipers of the Maidan. The new coalition is the group around Klitschko, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko, which came to power after the overthrow.
In case it turns out that Poroshenko has come to power by snipers, we envisage a government coup without understanding it. It went so quickly, that we really have to admit: we are too stupid to really understand it. However, it could be that Putin is less stupid and has seen it the right way. But I am not saying you should blindly believe Putin, because he has his agenda as well. It’s a question we will have to answer in economic history and in contemporary history: Is this an event such as 1953, when the US intelligence service CIA and British intelligence MI-6 overthrew the Government of Mossadegh in Iran, because he had nationalized the oil? At that time they had disguised agents as alleged terrorists, who carried out attacks and spread chaos across the country. It is called “strategy of tension”, aiming at so intentionally creating chaos and tensions to cause the fall of a government; this is something that works, which is historically demonstrated.
NATO increasingly performs maneuvres in recent months. Because of one of these NATO maneuvres, even air traffic control failed in several European countries. Is this only military presence or is there more behind the troop movements?
Just generally, I can say that on the side of Russia as well as on the side of the NATO military presence is being increased. However, contrary to the belief of many commentators, I think we are not yet facing the third world war like in the days of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. But we are in a situation of deep distrust. Moscow and Washington distrust each other, and Berlin is caught in between.
There are several key NATO bases, including the US airbase Ramstein and the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart in Germany. What role does Germany currently and in the future play in NATO’s strategy?
Germany is a junior partner of NATO, because the United States lead the NATO. From the perspective of the United States, Germany is an occupied country. This hurts of course, if you read that as a German reader, but that’s the present situation, nevertheless. We have American bases in Germany and the US military intelligence service NSA monitors the mobile of Chancellor Merkel. And if the Americans say: Let’s go to the Hindu-Kush, then the German soldiers have to go out and shoot Afghans, although they never had a problem with them previously. That means, unfortunately, Germany has taken over the position of a vassal. And Germany has a hard time, to liberate itself from this position.
The reason is a very simple one: the United States are the empire. The empire is the largest economy in the world measured by the GDP. That is the US. It owns most of all aircraft carriers and the most powerful air force, by number, type, and modernity. That’s the United States. It owns the world reserve currency. That’s the dollar, so once again the United States. And finally the United States have most military bases worldwide, not only Guantánamo, Diego Garcia and Afghanistan, but also Ramstein, etc. Also important: The empire dominates the media and ensures favourable reporting. And this is the position of Germany: It is located in a subordinate position within the American empire, and most German media don’t dare to state that openly. By the way, Switzerland is not much better off. The US empire exerts pressure on Switzerland, but at least we are not a member of NATO and have not any American military bases – we Swiss do not want this.
But Switzerland, as well as Finland, is member of a NATO affiliate organization …
… the “Partnership for Peace”, yes. Switzerland is severely criticized, and rightly so, because we definitely don’t want to become a NATO member. It is true, some politicians want this indeed, but the Swiss population does not. If there was a vote, it would be rejected by a majority, because the Swiss population is against the NATO aggression. Switzerland’s opinion towards the United States has changed greatly to the negative, in recent years.
The United States are perceived here as more hypocritical the more the longer, because they cause economic wars worldwide. They have monitored the data transfer of the world – especially the SWIFT data – with the help of the US intelligence organisation NSA and use this data against the Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse. They are bad-mouthing the Swiss, because Swiss banks have in fact helped American citizens to evade taxes, what was wrong. At the same time the Swiss watch but with astonishment that the tax evasion in the United States – so in Delaware or in England by the trusts – is still possible. In this respect the Swiss don’t understand that the United States morally show off against tax evasion, but leave their own loopholes open. Therefore, the mood here is increasingly anti-American.
11 September 2001 plays a key role regarding NATO, because at that time it came to the mutual defense clause under Article 5. Is the mutual defense clause still in force?
This is an interesting question. You would have to ask NATO itself. There was a big debate about after 9/11. Anyway, the mutual defense guarantee was proclaimed after 9/11, that is clear. The Americans came over to Europe and said: That’s what it is like, and now here we go to the Hindu Kush. Then, 9/11 was a certain story that you either could swallow or not. It was the first time that the mutual defense guarantee in the history was invoked. This shows the role of the empire, as well. It takes the right to interpret historical events its own way. The 11 September attacks are disputed among historians – there are various opinions on the subject. But as soon a historian expresses his own view, he is shouted down as a conspiracy theorist. And this means that we are not allowed to say: Just a moment, there are question marks concerning the activation of Article 5. NATO doesn’t want to talk about it. It doesn’t want any critical discussion about 9/11 and about operation Gladio. It’s just trying to suppress these issues. But I think they will fail in the long-term, because we live in the information age. The longer, the more people are able to develop different perspectives on an issue, and that is a good thing. •
Dr Daniele Ganser is historian and peace researcher. He explores the topics of energy, war and peace from a geopolitical perspective. His focus thereby is international contemporary history since 1945, intelligence and special forces, covert warfare and geostrategy as well as peak oil and resource wars. His book “NATO’s Secret Armies – Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe” was published in 2005 and translated into ten languages.
Source: Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten DWN 29.7.2014, (http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten....-sicht-der- usa-ist-Deutschland-ein-besetztes-land)
02-09-2014, 02:08 PM
02-09-2014, 06:39 PM
Donetsk prosecutors put Ukraine punitive battalion commander on police wanted list
World September 01, 19:58 UTC+4
The Donbass battalion, a voluntary armed unit, was set up in April this year to carry out a security operation against the supporters of the DPR
Soldier from the Donbass batallion
Soldier from the Donbass batallion© ITAR-TASS/ЕРА/IVAN BOBERSKYY
Russian Red Cross gathers evidence of war crimes in Ukraine
DONETSK, September 01. /ITAR-TASS/. Prosecutors in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) put the commander of the Donbass punitive battalion, Semyon Semyonchenko, on a police wanted list on Monday.
The Donbass battalion, a voluntary armed unit, was set up in April this year to carry out a security operation against the supporters of the DPR.
Earlier this year, Ukraine’s parliament-appointed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk awarded the Order of Bogdan Khemlnitsky III class to Semyonchenko who appeared at a briefing in Dnipropetrovsk, without wearing his balaclava for the first time, on Monday.
The order, however, did not prevent a failed operation in east Ukraine. “Moreover, it does not rid Semyonchenko of responsibility for his doings,” DPR prosecutors said.
Alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping Official Washington – and the specter of a new Cold War – U.S. intelligence veterans took the unusual step of sending this Aug. 30 memo to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian “invasion.”
MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel. (Photo credit: א (Aleph))
We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicious of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama tried on Aug. 29 to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift.”
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on “intelligence” that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.
Experience With Untruth
Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know.”
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on Aug. 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were “increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence” and told him flatly, “Powell’s presentation does not come close” to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to “widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic.
Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can “shock and awe.” In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a Feb. 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the U.S. embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
Lavrov warned pointedly of “fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Burns gave his cable the unusual title, “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that “Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.”
On Aug. 29, Ukrainian Prime Minister ****ny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the Feb. 22 coup d’etat in Kiev.
“Yats is the guy,” said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, “**** the EU.”
Timing of the Russian “Invasion”
The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.
According to the “press service of the President of Ukraine” on Aug. 18, Poroshenko called for a “regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives,” said Poroshenko, adding, “we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances.”
If the “new circumstances” meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to “regroup,” to “rearrange” the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.
Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)
No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the rag-tag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned
http://www.unhcr.org/540590ae9.html
World September 01, 19:58 UTC+4
The Donbass battalion, a voluntary armed unit, was set up in April this year to carry out a security operation against the supporters of the DPR
Soldier from the Donbass batallion
Soldier from the Donbass batallion© ITAR-TASS/ЕРА/IVAN BOBERSKYY
Russian Red Cross gathers evidence of war crimes in Ukraine
DONETSK, September 01. /ITAR-TASS/. Prosecutors in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) put the commander of the Donbass punitive battalion, Semyon Semyonchenko, on a police wanted list on Monday.
The Donbass battalion, a voluntary armed unit, was set up in April this year to carry out a security operation against the supporters of the DPR.
Earlier this year, Ukraine’s parliament-appointed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk awarded the Order of Bogdan Khemlnitsky III class to Semyonchenko who appeared at a briefing in Dnipropetrovsk, without wearing his balaclava for the first time, on Monday.
The order, however, did not prevent a failed operation in east Ukraine. “Moreover, it does not rid Semyonchenko of responsibility for his doings,” DPR prosecutors said.
Alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping Official Washington – and the specter of a new Cold War – U.S. intelligence veterans took the unusual step of sending this Aug. 30 memo to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian “invasion.”
MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel. (Photo credit: א (Aleph))
We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicious of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama tried on Aug. 29 to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift.”
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on “intelligence” that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.
Experience With Untruth
Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know.”
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on Aug. 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were “increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence” and told him flatly, “Powell’s presentation does not come close” to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to “widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic.
Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can “shock and awe.” In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a Feb. 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the U.S. embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
Lavrov warned pointedly of “fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Burns gave his cable the unusual title, “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that “Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.”
On Aug. 29, Ukrainian Prime Minister ****ny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the Feb. 22 coup d’etat in Kiev.
“Yats is the guy,” said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, “**** the EU.”
Timing of the Russian “Invasion”
The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.
According to the “press service of the President of Ukraine” on Aug. 18, Poroshenko called for a “regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives,” said Poroshenko, adding, “we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances.”
If the “new circumstances” meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to “regroup,” to “rearrange” the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.
Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)
No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the rag-tag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned
http://www.unhcr.org/540590ae9.html
02-09-2014, 11:39 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-02...ng-ukraine
While only 'humanitarian adviser' boots on the ground are present in Iraq (and Syria), Reuters reports that preparations are under way near Ukraine's western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies. As Obama told reporters last week, "that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming," it seems a little odd 'strategically' to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine, entailing the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.
As Reuters reports,
As fighting between the army and Russian-backed rebels rages in eastern Ukraine, preparations are under way near its western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies.
The decision to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 is seen as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine while stopping well short of military intervention in the conflict.
...
"At the moment, we are still planning for (the exercise) to go ahead," U.S. Navy Captain Gregory Hicks, spokesman for the U.S. Army's European Command said on Tuesday.
...
But Rapid Trident will entail the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.
...
"It is very important to understand that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming," Obama told reporters at the White House last week.
...
The United States European Command (EUCOM) says the exercise this month will involve about 200 U.S. personnel as well as 1,100 others from Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Britain, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania and Spain.
Focused on peacekeeping, it will include command post drills, patrolling and dealing with improvised explosive devices.
While only 'humanitarian adviser' boots on the ground are present in Iraq (and Syria), Reuters reports that preparations are under way near Ukraine's western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies. As Obama told reporters last week, "that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming," it seems a little odd 'strategically' to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine, entailing the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.
As Reuters reports,
As fighting between the army and Russian-backed rebels rages in eastern Ukraine, preparations are under way near its western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies.
The decision to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 is seen as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine while stopping well short of military intervention in the conflict.
...
"At the moment, we are still planning for (the exercise) to go ahead," U.S. Navy Captain Gregory Hicks, spokesman for the U.S. Army's European Command said on Tuesday.
...
But Rapid Trident will entail the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.
...
"It is very important to understand that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming," Obama told reporters at the White House last week.
...
The United States European Command (EUCOM) says the exercise this month will involve about 200 U.S. personnel as well as 1,100 others from Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Britain, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania and Spain.
Focused on peacekeeping, it will include command post drills, patrolling and dealing with improvised explosive devices.
03-09-2014, 03:24 PM
Airplane
Analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft, evidence for very strong machine-gun fire
New Straits Times
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 04:54 CDTPrint
mh17 bullet hole hull cockpit
© unknown
The holes in the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 are believed to have come from 30mm cannon fire.
Intelligence analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.
This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.
In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".
This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.
In a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy on Tuesday, Kiev denied that its fighters were airborne during the time MH17 was shot down. This follows a statement released by the Russian Defence Ministry that its air traffic control had detected Ukrainian Air Force activity in the area on the same day.
They also denied all allegations made by the Russian government and said the country's core interest was in ensuring an immediate, comprehensive, transparent and unbiased international investigation into the tragedy by establishing a state commission comprising experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol.
"We have evidence that the plane was downed by Russian-backed terrorist with a BUK-M1 SAM system (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reporting name SA-11) which, together with the crew, had been supplied from Russia. This was all confirmed by our intelligence, intercepted telephone conversations of the terrorists and satellite pictures.
"At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have never used any anti-aircraft missiles since the anti-terrorist operations started in early April," the statement read.
Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.
Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.
Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk.
Bociurkiw is a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with OSCE who, along with another colleague, were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after flight MH17 was brought down over eastern Ukraine.
In the CBC interview, the reporter in the video preceded it with: "The wreckage was still smouldering when a small team from the OSCE got there. No other officials arrived for days".
"There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire," Bociurkiw said in the interview.
Parry had said that Bociurkiw's testimony is "as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we'll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian, British or Ukrainian governments, each of which has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence.
"That's powerfully authoritative testimony. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organising to come later," Parry had said.
Retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko had also weighed in on the new shootdown theory with Parry and pointed to the entry and exit holes centred around the cockpit.
"You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30mm caliber projectile.
"The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes, show shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent - outwardly."
He deduced that in order to have some of those holes fraying inwardly, and the others fraying outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter firing into the cockpit from the airliner's starboard side. This is critical, as no surface-fired missile (or shrapnel) hitting the airliner could possibly punch holes into the cockpit from both sides of the plane.
"It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko's main discovery. You can't have projectiles going in both directions - into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides - unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.
"Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile," Parry had said.
Comment: As Joe Quinn wrote in his mid-July 2014 article Who shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17? New Cold War, same old propaganda:
Expect any 'investigation' into this disaster to be a drawn-out affair, thwarted at every turn by the culprits. Other events in the fast-changing geopolitical landscape will soon eclipse it...
This especially has come true. No real investigation has happened. The aircraft has not been assembled like a jigsaw puzzle as is usual for such incidents. After just a few days, this catastrophe evaporated entirely from the mainstream media and public awareness. But we all will have to pay for this 'forgetting' due to the long-term political repercussions arising from this incident.
One disagreement we have with this analysis is that there is insufficient evidence to say one way or another whether the explosion was caused externally or internally. The most sure-fire (please excuse the pun) way to down an aircraft is to plant a bomb on-board. With the Su-25 being sent up beforehand to take out the pilots, absolutely no chances were taken with MH17 - the perpetrators were determined that that plane was coming down.
A preliminary report on the reasons behind the Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine will be released within days. However, it will take one year to perform a full investigation which will answer all questions, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) said.
The report will be ready at the end of the week or early next week, DSB spokeswoman Sara Vernooij said.
The document will shed some light on the cause of the tragedy, though many questions will remain unanswered, she stressed.
According to Vernooij, the preliminary report will include the first results from the flight recorders and data from other sources such as satellites and radars.
As for the full report, “it’ll take about a year to complete,” she said, adding that it is likely to be published in summer 2015.
The spokeswoman stressed that all of the agency’s specialists involved in the investigation have been working from The Hague, as the final report can be prepared without a visit to the crash site.
However, DSB still plans to send experts to Ukraine, when the area around the crash site becomes safer. She added that they will examine certain debris and confirm available data on the ground.
The Dutch investigation is being executed in accordance with the norms and standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Vernooij said.
All 298 people aboard the Malaysia Airlines jet died as it crashed in Ukraine's Donetsk region on July 17. The majority of those on the plane – which was allegedly shot down – were citizens of the Netherlands.
Both sides involved in the Ukraine conflict – the government and militias which refused to recognize the February coup in Kiev – accuse each other of bringing down the aircraft.
It was initially alleged that the plane was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. However, claims were also made that the flight was shot down by a military jet which was in the area at the same time.
The investigation of the tragedy was hampered by fighting in the area around the crash site, with Kiev and rebels accusing each other of attempting to conceal the facts.
Surprisingly it has taken this long.......obviously someone either has managed to manipulate something, or it comes at a opportunistic time......or someone wishes to continue to drive a wedge between, the peoples of Ukraine,NovaRusija and Russia, and the political leaderships of each entity. The truth and justice will always be sacrificed!
Analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft, evidence for very strong machine-gun fire
New Straits Times
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 04:54 CDTPrint
mh17 bullet hole hull cockpit
© unknown
The holes in the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 are believed to have come from 30mm cannon fire.
Intelligence analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.
This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.
In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".
This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.
In a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy on Tuesday, Kiev denied that its fighters were airborne during the time MH17 was shot down. This follows a statement released by the Russian Defence Ministry that its air traffic control had detected Ukrainian Air Force activity in the area on the same day.
They also denied all allegations made by the Russian government and said the country's core interest was in ensuring an immediate, comprehensive, transparent and unbiased international investigation into the tragedy by establishing a state commission comprising experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol.
"We have evidence that the plane was downed by Russian-backed terrorist with a BUK-M1 SAM system (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reporting name SA-11) which, together with the crew, had been supplied from Russia. This was all confirmed by our intelligence, intercepted telephone conversations of the terrorists and satellite pictures.
"At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have never used any anti-aircraft missiles since the anti-terrorist operations started in early April," the statement read.
Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.
Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.
Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk.
Bociurkiw is a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with OSCE who, along with another colleague, were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after flight MH17 was brought down over eastern Ukraine.
In the CBC interview, the reporter in the video preceded it with: "The wreckage was still smouldering when a small team from the OSCE got there. No other officials arrived for days".
"There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire," Bociurkiw said in the interview.
Parry had said that Bociurkiw's testimony is "as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we'll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian, British or Ukrainian governments, each of which has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence.
"That's powerfully authoritative testimony. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organising to come later," Parry had said.
Retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko had also weighed in on the new shootdown theory with Parry and pointed to the entry and exit holes centred around the cockpit.
"You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30mm caliber projectile.
"The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes, show shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent - outwardly."
He deduced that in order to have some of those holes fraying inwardly, and the others fraying outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter firing into the cockpit from the airliner's starboard side. This is critical, as no surface-fired missile (or shrapnel) hitting the airliner could possibly punch holes into the cockpit from both sides of the plane.
"It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko's main discovery. You can't have projectiles going in both directions - into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides - unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.
"Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile," Parry had said.
Comment: As Joe Quinn wrote in his mid-July 2014 article Who shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17? New Cold War, same old propaganda:
Expect any 'investigation' into this disaster to be a drawn-out affair, thwarted at every turn by the culprits. Other events in the fast-changing geopolitical landscape will soon eclipse it...
This especially has come true. No real investigation has happened. The aircraft has not been assembled like a jigsaw puzzle as is usual for such incidents. After just a few days, this catastrophe evaporated entirely from the mainstream media and public awareness. But we all will have to pay for this 'forgetting' due to the long-term political repercussions arising from this incident.
One disagreement we have with this analysis is that there is insufficient evidence to say one way or another whether the explosion was caused externally or internally. The most sure-fire (please excuse the pun) way to down an aircraft is to plant a bomb on-board. With the Su-25 being sent up beforehand to take out the pilots, absolutely no chances were taken with MH17 - the perpetrators were determined that that plane was coming down.
A preliminary report on the reasons behind the Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine will be released within days. However, it will take one year to perform a full investigation which will answer all questions, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) said.
The report will be ready at the end of the week or early next week, DSB spokeswoman Sara Vernooij said.
The document will shed some light on the cause of the tragedy, though many questions will remain unanswered, she stressed.
According to Vernooij, the preliminary report will include the first results from the flight recorders and data from other sources such as satellites and radars.
As for the full report, “it’ll take about a year to complete,” she said, adding that it is likely to be published in summer 2015.
The spokeswoman stressed that all of the agency’s specialists involved in the investigation have been working from The Hague, as the final report can be prepared without a visit to the crash site.
However, DSB still plans to send experts to Ukraine, when the area around the crash site becomes safer. She added that they will examine certain debris and confirm available data on the ground.
The Dutch investigation is being executed in accordance with the norms and standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Vernooij said.
All 298 people aboard the Malaysia Airlines jet died as it crashed in Ukraine's Donetsk region on July 17. The majority of those on the plane – which was allegedly shot down – were citizens of the Netherlands.
Both sides involved in the Ukraine conflict – the government and militias which refused to recognize the February coup in Kiev – accuse each other of bringing down the aircraft.
It was initially alleged that the plane was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. However, claims were also made that the flight was shot down by a military jet which was in the area at the same time.
The investigation of the tragedy was hampered by fighting in the area around the crash site, with Kiev and rebels accusing each other of attempting to conceal the facts.
Surprisingly it has taken this long.......obviously someone either has managed to manipulate something, or it comes at a opportunistic time......or someone wishes to continue to drive a wedge between, the peoples of Ukraine,NovaRusija and Russia, and the political leaderships of each entity. The truth and justice will always be sacrificed!
« Старије Теме | Новије Теме »
Корисника прегледа ову тему: 1 Гост(а)