Posted by Gwin Ru
(here)
The Ukrainian attack on the Kersch bridge was intended to provoke a Russian strike on Odessa.
Well, that happened last night. Odessa's port (not the city, which the Russians want to protect) was hammered by multiple and intense missile and drone attacks.
The American people urgently need to know the true history of the war in Ukraine and its current prospects. Unfortunately, the mainstream media ––The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN –– have become mere mouthpieces of the government, repeating US President Joe Biden’s lies and hiding history from the public.
Biden is again denigrating Russian President Vladimir Putin, this time accusing Putin of a “craven lust for land and power,” after declaring last year that “For God’s sake, that man [Putin] cannot stay in power.” Yet Biden is the one who is trapping Ukraine in an open-ended war by continuing to push NATO enlargement to Ukraine. He is afraid to tell the truth to the American and Ukrainian people, rejecting diplomacy, and opting instead for perpetual war.
Expanding NATO to Ukraine, which Biden has long promoted, is a U.S. gambit that has failed. The neocons, including Biden, thought from the late 1990s onward that the US could expand NATO to Ukraine (and Georgia) despite Russia’s vociferous and long-standing opposition. They didn’t believe that Putin would actually go to war over NATO expansion.
Yet for Russia, NATO enlargement to Ukraine (and Georgia) is viewed as an existential threat to Russia’s national security, notably given Russia’s 2,000-km border with Ukraine, and Georgia’s strategic position on the eastern edge of the Black Sea. U.S. diplomats have explained this basic reality to U.S. politicians and generals for decades, but the politicians and generals have arrogantly and crudely persisted in pushing NATO enlargement nonetheless.
At this point, Biden knows full well that NATO enlargement to Ukraine would trigger World War III. That’s why behind the scenes Biden put NATO enlargement into low gear at the Vilnius NATO Summit. Yet rather than admit the truth – that Ukraine will not be part of NATO – Biden prevaricates, promising Ukraine’s eventual membership. In reality, he is committing Ukraine to ongoing bloodletting for no reason other than U.S. domestic politics, specifically Biden’s fear of looking weak to his political foes. (A half-century ago, Presidents Johnson and Nixon sustained the Vietnam War for essentially the same pathetic reason, and with the same lying, as the late Daniel Ellsberg brilliantly explained.)
Ukraine can’t win. Russia is more likely than not to prevail on the battlefield, as it seems now to be doing. Yet even if Ukraine were to break through with conventional forces and NATO weaponry, Russia would escalate to nuclear war if necessary to prevent NATO in Ukraine.
Throughout his entire career, Biden has served the military-industrial complex. He has relentlessly promoted NATO enlargement and supported America’s deeply destabilizing wars of choice in Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine. He defers to generals who want more war and more “surges,” and who predict imminent victory just ahead to keep the gullible public onside.
Moreover, Biden and his team (Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland) seem to have believed their own propaganda that Western sanctions would strangle the Russian economy, while miracle weapons such as HIMARS would defeat Russia. And all the while, they have been telling Americans to pay no attention to Russia’s 6,000 nuclear weapons.
Ukrainian leaders have gone along with the US deception for reasons that are hard to fathom. Perhaps they believe the US, or are afraid of the US, or fear their own extremists, or simply are extremists, ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to death and injury in the naïve belief that Ukraine can defeat a nuclear superpower that regards the war as existential. Or possibly some of the Ukrainian leaders are making fortunes by skimming from the tens of billions of dollars of Western aid and arms.
The only way to save Ukraine is a negotiated peace. In a negotiated settlement, the US would agree that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine while Russia would agree to withdraw its troops. Remaining issues – Crimea, the Donbas, US and European sanctions, the future of European security arrangements – would be handled politically, not by endless war.
Russia has repeatedly tried negotiations: to try to forestall the eastward enlargement of NATO; to try to find suitable security arrangements with the US and Europe; to try to settle inter-ethnic issues in Ukraine after 2014 (the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements); to try to sustain limits on anti-ballistic missiles; and to try to end the Ukraine war in 2022 via direct negotiations with Ukraine. In all cases, the US government disdained, ignored, or blocked these attempts, often putting forward the big lie that Russia rather than the US rejects negotiations. JFK said it exactly right in 1961: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” If only Biden would heed JFK’s enduring wisdom.
To help the public move beyond the simplistic narrative of Biden and the mainstream media, I offer a brief chronology of some key events leading to the ongoing war.
January 31, 1990. German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich-Genscher pledges to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that in the context of German reunification and disbanding of the Soviet Warsaw Pact military alliance, NATOwill rule out an “expansion of its territory to the East, i.e., moving it closer to the Soviet borders.”
February 9, 1990. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III agrees with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.”
June 29 – July 2, 1990. NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner tells a high-level Russian delegation that “the NATO Council and he [Woerner] are against the expansion of NATO.”
July 1, 1990. Ukrainian Rada (parliament) adopts the Declaration of State Sovereignty, in which “The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.”
August 24, 1991. Ukraine declares independence on the basis of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, which includes the pledge of neutrality.
Mid-1992. Bush Administration policymakers reach a secretinternal consensus to expand NATO, contrary to commitments recently made to the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.
July 8, 1997. At the Madrid NATO Summit, Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic are invited to begin NATO accession talks.
September-October, 1997. In Foreign Affairs (Sept/Oct, 1997) former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski details the timeline for NATO enlargement, with Ukraine’s negotiations provisionally to begin during 2005-2010.
March 24 – June 10, 1999. NATO bombs Serbia. Russia terms the NATO bombing “a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter."
March 2000. Ukrainian President Kuchma declares that "there is no question of Ukraine joining NATOtoday since this issue is extremely complex and has many angles to it.”
June 13, 2002. The US unilaterally withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Weapons Treaty, an action which the Vice-Chair of the Russian Duma Defense Committee characterizes as an “extremely negative event of historical scale.”
November-December 2004. The “Orange Revolution” occurs in Ukraine, events that the West characterizes as a democratic revolution and the Russian government characterizes as a Western-manufactured grab for power with overt and covert US support.
February 10, 2007. Putin strongly criticizes the U.S. attempt to create a unipolar world, backed by NATO enlargement, in a speech to the Munich Security Conference, declaring: “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion … represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”
February 1, 2008. US Ambassador to Russia William Burns sends a confidential cable to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, entitled “Nyet means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” emphasizing that “Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.”
February 18, 2008. The US recognizes Kosovo independence over heated Russian objections. The Russian Government declares that Kosovo independence violates “the sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia, the Charter of the United Nations, UNSCR 1244, the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework and the high-level Contact Group accords."
April 3, 2008. NATO declares that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO.” Russia declares that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.”
August 20, 2008. The US announces that it will deploy ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems in Poland, to be followed later by Romania. Russia expresses strenuous opposition to the BMD systems.
January 28, 2014. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt plot regime change in Ukraine in a call that is intercepted and posted on YouTube on February 7, in which Nuland notes that “[Vice President] Biden’s willing” to help close the deal.
February 21, 2014. Governments of Ukraine, Poland, France, and Germany reach an Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine, calling for new elections later in the year. The far-right Right Sector and other armed groups instead demand Yanukovych’s immediate resignation, and take over government buildings. Yanukovych flees. The Parliament immediately strips the President of his powers without an impeachment process.
March 16, 2014. Russia holds a referendum in Crimea that according to the Russian Government results in a large majority vote for Russian rule. On March 21, the Russian Duma votes to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation. The Russian Government draws the analogy to the Kosovo referendum. The US rejects the Crimea referendum as illegitimate.
March 18, 2014. President Putin characterizes the regime change as a coup, stating: “those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots.”
March 25, 2014. President Barack Obama mocks Russia “as a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength but out of weakness,”
February 12, 2015. Signing of Minsk II agreement. The agreement is unanimously backed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2202 on February 17, 2015. Former German 🇩🇪 Chancellor Angela Merkel later acknowledges that the Minsk II agreement was designed to give time for Ukraine to strengthen its military. It was not implemented by Ukraine, and President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged that he had no intention to implement the agreement.
February 1, 2019. The U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Russia harshly criticizes the INF withdrawal as a “destructive” act that stoked security risks.
June 14, 2021. At the 2021 NATO Summit in Brussels, NATO reconfirms NATO’s intention to enlarge and include Ukraine: “We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance.”
January 26, 2022. The U.S. formally replies to Russia that the US and NATO will not negotiate with Russia over issues of NATO enlargement, slamming the door on a negotiated path to avoid an expansion of the war in Ukraine. The U.S. invokes NATO policy that “Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.” In short, the US asserts that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is none of Russia’s business.
“We received their response in late January. The assessment of this response shows that our Western colleagues are not prepared to take up our major proposals, primarily those on NATO’s eastward non-expansion. This demand was rejected with reference to the bloc’s so-called open-door policy and the freedom of each state to choose its own way of ensuring security. Neither the United States, nor the North Atlantic Alliance proposed an alternative to this key provision.”
The United States is doing everything it can to avoid the principle of indivisibility of security that we consider of fundamental importance and to which we have made many references. Deriving from it the only element that suits them – the freedom to choose alliances – they completely ignore everything else, including the key condition that reads that nobody – either in choosing alliances or regardless of them – is allowed to enhance their security at the expense of the security of others.”
February 24, 2022. In an address to the nation, President Putin declares: “It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.”
March 16, 2022. Russia and Ukraine announce significant progress towards a peace agreement mediated by Turkey and Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. As reported in the press, the basis of the agreement includes: “a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces.”
March 28, 2022. President Zelensky publicly declares that Ukraine is ready for neutrality combined with security guarantees as part of a peace agreement with Russia. “Security guarantees and neutrality, the non-nuclear status of our state — we’re ready to do that. That’s the most important point ... they started the war because of it.”
April 7, 2022. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov accuses the West of trying to derail the peace talks, claiming that Ukraine had gone back on previously agreed proposals. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett later states (on February 5, 2023) that the U.S. had blocked the pending Russia-Ukraine peace agreement. When asked if the Western powers blocked the agreement, Bennett answered: “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.” At some point, says Bennett, the West decided “to crush Putin rather than to negotiate.”
June 4, 2023. Ukraine launches a major counter-offensive, without achieving any major success as of mid-July 2023.
July 7, 2023. Biden acknowledges that Ukraine is “running out” of 155mm artillery shells, and that the US is “running low.”
July 11, 2023. At the NATO Summit in Vilnius, the final communique reaffirms Ukraine’s future in NATO: “We fully support Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements. Ukraine’s future is in NATO … Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance, and has made substantial progress on its reform path.”
July 13, 2023. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reiterates that Ukraine will “no doubt” join NATO when the war ends.
July 13, 2023. Putin reiterates that “As for Ukraine’s NATO membership, as we have said many times, this obviously creates a threat to Russia’s security. In fact, the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the reason, or rather one of the reasons for the special military operation. I am certain that this would not enhance Ukraine’s security in any way either. In general, it will make the world much more vulnerable and lead to more tensions in the international arena. So, I don’t see anything good in this. Our position is well known and has long been formulated.”
Colonel Douglas Macgregor Straight Calls - Analysis of breaking news and in-depth discussion of current geopolitical events in the United States of America and the world.
Russian military issues maritime warning for Black Sea 19 Jul, 2023
All ships heading for Ukrainian ports will be treated as potentially carrying weaponry, the Russian Defense Ministry has said
The Russian military issued a new navigational warning for the Black Sea on Wednesday, declaring certain areas in its international waters to be “temporarily unsafe” for vessels. Apart from that, the military advised seafarers against attempting to reach Ukraine’s ports, stating that all vessels heading there will be treated as potential carriers of war goods starting from Thursday.
Therefore, the flag state of a ship attempting to reach the Ukrainian Black Sea ports will be deemed as “taking part in the Ukrainian conflict on the side of the Kiev regime,” the Russian Defense ministry said in a statement.
The military said it also declared certain areas in the international waters of the Black Sea to be “temporarily unsafe” for navigation. The areas are located in the north-west and south-east of the waterway, the military noted, adding that all the necessary navigational warnings have already been published as required under existing procedures.
“With the termination of the Black Sea Initiative and the abolition of the maritime humanitarian corridor, from 00:00 Moscow time on July 20, 2023, all ships en route to Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea will be considered potential carriers of military cargo,” the military insisted.
The new restrictions de-facto re-impose the Russian naval blockade on Ukraine, lifted under the so-called Black Sea grain deal in July 2022. The agreement, signed with mediation by the UN and Türkiye, enabled the safe shipment of Ukrainian grain through Black Sea corridors amid the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. Moscow withdrew from the deal on Monday, citing the West’s failure to keep any of the promises made to Russia under the agreement, including re-enabling exports of grain and fertilizers from the country.
Over the past two days, Russia has also ramped up its cruise missile and suicide drone attacks on Ukraine, extensively striking targets in and around Odessa, the key port city of the country. The strikes come in retaliation to the new Ukrainian attack on Russia’s Crimean Bridge, which coincided with the termination of the grain deal.
At this past Friday’s Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, moderator Tucker Carlson challenged former Vice President Mike Pence about the now presidential candidate’s stance that the Biden administration has not offered enough military support for Ukraine. Carlson also questioned Pence’s support for Ukraine despite the lack of religious freedom in the eastern European country.
Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss whether this exchange should essentially end the Pence campaign, to the extent that it existed in the first place.
I hate to publish this, given all the propaganda in the article, but I think it is essentially accurate.
So read with a grain of doubt and verify waht you need.
Comments welcome !
Russia Ready to Supply Grain While West Sabotages Global Food Security – Putin
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia showed miracles of endurance and tolerance when it extended the Black Sea Grain Initiative in the past, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
"This deal was signed precisely a year ago, on July 22, 2022. This so-called 'deal' was extended more than once. The last time was in May of this year for the period up to July 17 inclusive. We extended this deal again and again and, by extending, showed simply miracles of endurance and patience, tolerance,” Putin said at a government meeting, adding that the West did everything to undermine the initiative.
Putin also noted Russia sees obstacles even when it wants to donate fertilizers to poor nations.
“Of the 262,000 tonnes of products blocked in European ports, only two batches were sent,” Putin said.
The Russian president further underscored the West undermined the essence of the agreement that maintained a "colossal humanitarian significance."
“The West completely undermined and wronged this essence. Instead of helping countries in need, the West used the grain deal for political blackmail, and besides, as I said, made it a tool for enriching transnational corporations, speculators in the global grain market,” he stressed.
"No one was going to fulfill any commitments and agreements on the grain deal, they just constantly demanded something from the Russian Federation," the president added.
He also stated the West demonstrated audacity and impudence unwilling to adhere to the terms of the deal towards Russia.
"Even Russian intensions to donate fertilizers to poorer nations are hindered by the West," Putin highlighted.
It is Russia that contributes to global food security, while statements that Ukraine feeds countries are lies," the president emphasized. Although "the continuation of the grain deal has lost all sense," Putin noted, detailing that Russia is ready to consider returning to the grain deal if all obligations concerning Moscow are implemented.
“I want to emphasize that we are not against the deal itself, as such. Especially given its importance for the global food market … And of course, we will consider the possibility of returning to it, but only on one condition - if … all the previously agreed principles of Russia's participation in this deal are implemented without exceptions,” he said.
"All obstacles for Russian banks, financial institutions that service the supply of food and fertilizers must be removed. This includes their immediate connection to the SWIFT international banking settlement system. What we need is not some promises or idea on this issue. We need implementation of these conditions."
"And one of the basic conditions for Russia to return to the grain deal is restoring the humanitarian essence," Putin stressed.
"I believe that the UN staff sincerely sought to fulfill the promises made by the West. But they never managed to achieve anything. They did practically nothing for the normal work of the deal," the leader noted.
When the problems appeared
Russia, Ukraine, Turkiye and the United Nations struck a deal to provide a humanitarian maritime corridor for ships with food and fertilizer exports from Ukrainian Black Sea ports on July 22, 2022. However, while Moscow has been performing its part of the accord, pledges to lift sanctions on Russian vessels engaged in grain and fertilizer exports were not kept.
Problems with insurance and servicing of ships in ports were not addressed. Banks did not issue loans to purchasers of Russian grain and denied bank guarantees, often citing the danger of Western sanctions.
Moreover, the grain transported via the Black Sea barely reached the poorest countries, which was one of the main points of the deal. Only 2.6% of the deliveries were sent to countries in need, while 80% of supplies were heading to nations with high or above-average incomes.
Posted by kfm27917
(here)
I hate to publish this, given all the propaganda in the article, but I think it is essentially accurate.
So read with a grain of doubt and verify waht you need.
Comments welcome !
The article is essentially Ben Fulford's Khazarian Mafia.
While it is not entirely untrue, the thesis does have some holes, such as:
“Judaism was the most actively proselytizing religion,” explained Jewish historian Shlomo Sand. “The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas.”
The reason that the Khazarian Emperor converted to Judaism was--from the Orthodox point of view--taken because no Orthodox priest was present at his religious debate--and then because he could not find any difference in the Abrahmic faiths, he selected Judaism for being the oldest.
This is not unusual, since the Russian reason for accepting Orthodoxy is like the English reason for Anglicanism, they are reacting to circumstances, and have nothing to do with what the religions believe.
The place did not really last that long, in light of which we find a huge gap in the history employed by the thesis:
Sviatoslav I of Kiev destroyed Khazaria around 1048 and absorbed it into Kievan Rus’, a territory that would later become part of the Russian Empire.
In Imperial Russia, the Ashkenazim were kept under tight control and enclosed in the Pale of Settlement, which, according to Wikipedia, “was a western region of the Russian Empire with varying borders that existed from 1791 to 1917 where permanent residency by Jews was allowed and beyond which Jewish residency, permanent or temporary, was mostly forbidden.”
Didn't they just skip over 700 years?
The world stopped and an Ashkenazi diaspora groomed it for a doctrine of revenge?
No. They have ignored the important point, which is that Oliver Cromwell decided to use them for hegemony, and all British governments have continued this policy.
In the 1700s, British Christians began interpreting Russia as the adversary described in the Book of Ezekiel.
The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory appears after the French Revolution, and is British Fascist by origin, which is a bit complicated for the country that is actually doing it. That is because it is a smokescreen.
Kol Nidra is a difficult topic because it deals with breaking vows and absolving Jews from anything they did wrong. Such as convert to Christianity--it was pretend and you were a "crypto Jew". But both Orthodoxy and Catholicism condemn them for rejecting the savior. So they have often been forcefully converted, or otherwise persecuted or shunned, due to what is actually in the religious beliefs.
I would think that after 2-300 years, one might forgive the fact of one's great-great-grandfather having been killed by some foreign country. But when I look back, I don't really see a trend of "Jewish attacks". Overlooking Aethelstan in the 900s, every single English attack on Scotland impacted my ancestors, and the same policy continues through this very moment. Hasn't stopped. If they had relented, I might forget about it. Right now we are at about a thousand years of the same thing.
I am not excusing Jewish or Ashkenazi scumbags, because many of them are very guilty as charged. The thesis of them having continuity of power where there is none, or autocratic control when they are mostly useful tools of larger continuous powers, is, I think, a misleading way to make Protestants look innocent.
Posted by ExomatrixTV
(here) January 26, 2022. The U.S. formally replies to Russia that the US and NATO will not negotiate with Russia over issues of NATO enlargement, slamming the door on a negotiated path to avoid an expansion of the war in Ukraine. The U.S. invokes NATO policy that “Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.” In short, the US asserts that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is none of Russia’s business.
That was a pretty good timeline with a lot of references.
From this, we see Bush I thought it might be a good idea, because otherwise the European Union might come in with its own security arrangements, and NATO and the US would become less relevant.
Bush II actually believed that by adding Georgia and Ukraine, Russia would become less aggressive.
The article contains a comment about the late 90s that links back to what I quoted above:
Confronted, too, with Russian opposition to NATO expansion and claims that the United States used its influence without regard for Russian interests, US policymakers responded by agreeing to consult with Russian officials but expressly refused to halt enlargement (Hill 2018, 114–137, 168–169).
The citation goes to a printed article:
Hill, W.H. 2018.
No Place for Russia: European Security Institutions since 1989
New York: Columbia University Press.
And so that is coming out in some pretty strong language, that one is lifted right off the NATO website, "No third country has a say..."
They might want to select "third party", as there are a lot of countries involved in the decision. One observes how emphatically they have shifted the tone from the actual text that is in the 1949 Treaty:
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
That obviously does not have a Russian veto built into it, but, it would seem to carry the understanding that a "third party" such as Russia might have external talks with members or potential members that might affect the process.
But then to actually do it in the late 90s, they have to be ostracized, they must be prevented from any kind of say or influence. We found this was the doctrine of Kissinger, Helms, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was in opposition to the policy Clinton might have otherwise used. According to the paper:
By 1993–1994, however, Clinton and his team came around to the same basic policy regarding NATO enlargement. The main shift was in the ostensible rationale. Where Bush’s team emphasized protecting the US role in Europe, the Clinton administration presented NATO enlargement as a way of buttressing democracy and liberalism in former Soviet client states...
In contrast, Lake, Holbrooke, and other expansion advocates believed such concerns were overstated; Russia could be persuaded to embrace NATO, enlargement would help socialize former Communist states into embracing democratic-liberal norms...
By 1995–1996, the consensus was such that neither sustained Russian opposition to
expansion, nor ambivalence on the part of European NATO members such as France (Sloan 2016, 120), affected the basic approach...
US strategists beginning in the mid-1990s discussed enlargement as a way of spreading democracy and free-market economics deemed valuable to US influence...
This matches the NATO page, where they describe their own 1995 enlargement study:
According to the Study, countries seeking NATO membership would have to be able to demonstrate that they have fulfilled certain requirements. These include:
a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy...
So that is the top requirement. The Clinton era simply seems to be using "security" as a thin veil over their true interest, economics. But it remains unclear why Helms proudly had to "tell him no" over the issue of whether Russia had any say about the enlargement. Why is the wording in the Treaty inadequate? Such that "no say" has to be specifically mentioned as the actual policy now?
The actual Article Five clearly references:
...collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations...
which as we saw, was more or less force-fed by Nelson Rockefeller and his promotion of "Nazi Argentina".
My idea of "open door" is not the one they have been screaming about, but, is only a few sentences further along:
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation...
Posted by kfm27917
(here)
I hate to publish this, given all the propaganda in the article, but I think it is essentially accurate.
So read with a grain of doubt and verify waht you need.
Comments welcome !
Posted by kfm27917
(here)
I hate to publish this, given all the propaganda in the article, but I think it is essentially accurate.
So read with a grain of doubt and verify waht you need.
Comments welcome !
Russian steel fist in Donetsk: Large number of T-14 "Armata" surprise attacks on Ukrainian positions and targets - Confirmation WarNews247 19/07/2023
Official confirmation from Russia!
The Russian Ministry of Defense dropped a "bomb" by officially announcing that the new T-14 Armata had unexpectedly hit Ukrainian targets in the Donetsk region!
WarNews247 has repeatedly reported the arrival of state-of-the-art tanks on the Donbas fronts.
It is the first official report of the participation of a large number of - as the Russians said - T-14 Armata in Ukraine.
Characteristics of the T-14 Armata
The T-14 Armata is a tank with an unmanned turret. It is equipped with a 1500-2000 hp diesel engine, a 125-mm gun which is controlled by remote control from the personnel gel as well as the missiles.
It also features an additional 30 mm autocannon with selective ammo supply, a 7.62-mm PKTM machine gun, and two twin 'Cornet' ATGM launchers.
It has a crew of three, autocannon, remote-controlled machine guns, new frontal armor up to 1400 RHA, active countermeasures against anti-tank missiles, passive countermeasures against laser beams, low combat profile, high speed, ability to destroy enemy targets with the cannon from a distance of 8,000 meters and reinforced anti-mine floor.
This tank aspires to be a benchmark for the construction of all future tanks.
"The tank has a number of unique features: it is equipped with a new generation of active protection complex 'afganit', capable of intercepting anti-tank missiles while it has the world's first electrodynamic armor known as 'Malakhit' capable of intercepting anti-tank missiles before them hit the tank," Russian media reported.
Latin America Refuses to Side With EU on Ukraine to Show Sovereignty 23 hours ago
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Latin American countries’ refusal to adopt the European position on the Ukraine conflict at the third summit of the EU and the CELAC is motivated by their historically grounded antipathy toward the US, which is viewed as an agenda setter for the EU and NATO, Francois Asselineau, a French geopolitical analyst, told Sputnik.
The third EU-CELAC Summit took place in Brussels from July 17-18. The EU failed to convince CELAC member states to directly condemn Russia's special military operation in the final declaration, but the document still expressed "deep concern on the ongoing war against Ukraine."
"The only common position of all Latin American countries in CELAC is their cordial detestation of the Northern ‘Yankees’ that have considered Latin America as their colony for 200 years. The dominance of the USA in NATO has certainly played a role too in the Latin Americans’ refusal at the summit to adopt the European version of the Ukrainian conflict. For most of the CELAC countries, the European Union and NATO are only the ‘sock-puppets’ of the US," Asselineau said, adding that, "All Latin American countries are fiercely proud of their sovereignty, the exact opposite of the European Union's will to dismantle its member nations."
"Another failure is the absence of any progress on the free trade agreement called MERCOSUR between the EU and four main countries: Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Mexico. The agreement was concluded in 2019 but never ratified, because the Europeans want to add environmental demands that the Latin Americans refuse," Asselineau continued, dismissing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's desire to settle the issue by the end of the year as "wishful thinking."
The CELAC is an intergovernmental bloc founded in 2010 to boost integration among Latin American and Caribbean countries and reduce the United States' influence on the region. The organization currently consists of 33 member states.
Colonel Douglas Macgregor Straight Calls - Analysis of breaking news and in-depth discussion of current geopolitical events in the United States of America and the world.
--What Cornel West SHOULD’VE Said To Anderson Cooper About Ukraine!
Jul 20, 2023 #TheJimmyDoreShow
Green Party presidential candidate Cornel West recently appeared on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show and the two sparred over the Ukraine War. Specifically, Cooper rejected Dr. West’s comparison of the United States’ invasion of Iraq to what Russia has done in Ukraine and formerly in Chechnya.
Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss West’s handling of Anderson Cooper and whether Cornel is ready for prime time.
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
🇺🇦🇺🇸 Poroshenko and Biden's telephone conversation was leaked to the Network, in which they discussed the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor from office in exchange for a loan of $ 1 billion
Ukrainian President Poroshenko admitted that he fired the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden's Burisma Holdings without any charges of corruption being brought against him.
➖Biden: “Tell me there is a new government and a new Attorney General. I'm ready to publicly sign a billion dollar commitment."
➖Poroshenko: "Despite the fact that we did not have any allegations of corruption, we have no information that he did something wrong, I asked him to resign."
Ostashko! Important - subscribe
I'm uncertain exactly when this conversation took place but will endeavour to find out, and where possible try an obtain a clean copy of the audio.
For now I've saved what has been shared here via this Twitter commentator:
“If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau
Re: WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia
Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
Odessa's port (not the city, which the Russians want to protect) was hammered by multiple and intense missile and drone attacks.
Reply With Quote
Re: WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia
:
Re: WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia
Bookmarks