Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Putin, China, and World War III

[MESHUGENE]

WW3-CONNECTING THE DOTS:

An outstanding 'mile stone' in the history of WW3 videos, was posted today:
ISIS Will Take Over Pakistan
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bTf8vg_MvQA

*

before you watch this video, please consider some of the facts that have already been accumulated by the internet research community:

Since Vietnam War, practically All international conflicts have been produced by Freemasons, banksters, intelligence agencies' false flags.....actually I should say SINCE WW1.

NO! NO!! NO!!! ITS AT LEAST SINCE WATERLOO!
http://www.rense.com/general81/3juu.htm

*

ALL recent 'Islamic terrorist' organization have been created and supported by USA+ISRAEL to forcibly create the 'Armageddon' requested/ordered by the Jewish/Jesuits/ Freemasons.
It is now so blatant, that we, “BY MISTAKE” are dropping from the air, food ,weapons, and supply to ISIS in the middle of the desert......”by mistake”!!!
Down here in Australia, we are told euphemistically that “we are bombing ISIS”.......
IMHO, ISIS could not exist one week without our help and support.

*

All major western media and intelligence agencies are controlled by the Rothschild family, the NSA and Israel.
911 was a spectacular example.
NEVER FORGET! BUILDING #7 !!!

*

The Pakistani intelligence agency, was ALWAYS under CIA control. This is why they assassinated their own PM Benazir Bhutto , after she declared that CIA agent Bin Laden, died already from kidney complications in 2001.

We now know that shortly before that, Bin Laden was treated by US military in a CIA/military hospital in Qatar, for kidney problems.
Similarly, The Israel PM Yitshak Rabin was assassinated by his own secret service, Shabak.
Need I mention that JFK was assassinated by his own secret service?

*

The Mumbai bombing was a coordinated false flag by Israel, the US, the Pakistani AND Indian governments.
this is the reason that while the Mumbai police chief declared the day after the false flag that he has arrested 8 of the terrorists.... Later he was forced to say that ONLY one terrorist was arrested.!!!
Could it be that the other 7 terrorists are now enjoying eating felafel on Dizengof st in Tel Aviv? :-)

Keep in mind that a MOST IMPORTANT detail which never showed up in western media 'reporting':

The Indian news media interviewed repeatedly the neighbors of the CHABAD HOUSE in Mumbai, who reported that during the two weeks before the Mumbai attack, many Israelis have been seen moving equipment into Chabad House!!!
two weeks before Mumbai attack?
“equipment”??
EXCUSE ME!!!

As usual, we cannot interview the rabbi or his wife, as they have been both assassinated!

OK!
that’s enough for all these “unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.”


So,
listen to Bill few times AND get ready for WW3....the freemasons are coming!
Bill Ryan Explains the Anglo-Saxon Mission
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BzydpQaPYd8

[Hervé]

Ouch! Aye-yayaye-yayaye...



The Importance Of The Cancellation Of South Stream

Wednesday, December 3, 2014
by Alexander Mercouris

The reaction to the cancellation of the Sound Stream project has been a wonder to behold and needs to be explained very carefully.

In order to understand what has happened it is first necessary to go back to the way Russian-European relations were developing in the 1990s.

Briefly, at that period, the assumption was that Russia would become the great supplier of energy and raw materials to Europe. This was the period of Europe's great “rush for gas” as the Europeans looked forward to unlimited and unending Russian supplies. It was the increase in the role of Russian gas in the European energy mix which made it possible for Europe to run down its coal industry and cut its carbon emissions and bully and lecture everyone else to do the same.

However the Europeans did not envisage that Russia would just supply them with energy. Rather they always supposed this energy would be extracted for them in Russia by Western energy companies. This after all is the pattern in most of the developing world. The EU calls this “energy security” - a euphemism for the extraction of energy in other countries by its own companies under its own control.

It never happened that way. Though the Russian oil industry was privatised it mostly remained in Russian hands. After Putin came to power in 2000 the trend towards privatisation in the oil industry was reversed. One of the major reasons for western anger at the arrest of Khodorkovsky and the closure of Yukos and the transfer of its assets to the state oil company Rosneft was precisely because is reversed this trend of privatisation in the oil industry.

In the gas industry the process of privatisation never really got started. Gas export continued to be controlled by Gazprom, maintaining its position as a state owned monopoly gas exporter. Since Putin came to power Gazprom’s position as a state owned Russian monopoly has been made fully secure.

Much of the anger that exists in the west towards Putin can be explained by European and western resentment at his refusal and that of the Russian government to the break up of Russia's energy monopolies and to the “opening up” (as it is euphemistically called) of the Russian energy industry to the advantage of western companies. Many of the allegations of corruption that are routinely made against Putin personally are intended to insinuate that he opposes the “opening up” of the Russian energy industry and the break up and privatisation of Gazprom and Rosneft because he has a personal stake in them (in the case of Gazprom, that he is actually its owner). If one examines in detail the specific allegations of corruption made against Putin (as I have done) this quickly becomes obvious.

His agenda of forcing Russia to privatise and break up its energy monopolies has never gone away. This is why Gazprom, despite the vital and reliable service it provides to its European customers, comes in for so much criticism. When Europeans complain about Europe's energy dependence upon Russia, they express their resentment at having to buy gas from a single Russian state owned company (Gazprom) as opposed to their own western companies operating in Russia.

This resentment exists simultaneously with a belief, very entrenched in Europe, that Russia is somehow dependent upon Europe as a customer for its gas and as a supplier of finance and technology.

This combination of resentment and overconfidence is what lies behind the repeated European attempts to legislate in Europe on energy questions in a way that is intended to force Russia to “open up” its the energy industry there.

The first attempt was the so-called Energy Charter, which Russia signed but ultimately refused to ratify. The latest attempt is the EU's so-called Third Energy Package.

This is presented as a development of EU anti-competition and anti-monopoly law. In reality, as everyone knows, it is targeted at Gazprom, which is a monopoly, though obviously not a European one.

This is the background to the conflict over South Stream. The EU authorities have insisted that South Stream must comply with the Third Energy Package even though the Third Energy Package came into existence only after the outline agreements for South Stream had been already reached.

Compliance with the Third Energy Package would have meant that though Gazprom supplied the gas it could not own or control the pipeline through which gas was supplied.

Were Gazprom to agree to this, it would acknowledge the EU’s authority over its operations. It would in that case undoubtedly face down the line more demands for more changes to its operating methods. Ultimately this would lead to demands for changes in the structure of the energy industry in Russia itself.

What has just happened is that the Russians have said no. Rather than proceed with the project by submitting to European demands, which is what the Europeans expected, the Russians have to everyone’s astonishment instead pulled out of the whole project.

This decision was completely unexpected. As I write this, the air is of full of angry complaints from south-eastern Europe that they were not consulted or informed of this decision in advance. Several politicians in south-eastern Europe (Bulgaria especially) are desperately clinging to the idea that the Russian announcement is a bluff (it isn’t) and that the project can still be saved. Since the Europeans cling to the belief that the Russians have no alternative to them as a customer, they were unable to anticipate and cannot now explain this decision.

Here it is important to explain why South Stream is important to the countries of south-eastern Europe and to the European economy as a whole.

All the south eastern European economies are in bad shape. For these countries South Stream was a vital investment and infrastructure project, securing their energy future. Moreover the transit fees that it promised would have been a major foreign currency earner.

For the EU, the essential point is that it depends on Russian gas. There has been a vast amount of talk in Europe about seeking alternative supplies. Progress in that direction had been to put it mildly small. Quite simply alternative supplies do not exist in anything like the quantity needed to replace the gas Europe gets from Russia.

There has been some brave talk of supplies of US liquefied natural gas replacing gas supplied by pipeline from Russia. Not only is such US gas inherently more expensive than Russian pipeline gas, hitting European consumers hard and hurting European competitiveness. It is unlikely to be available in anything like the necessary quantity. Quite apart from the probable dampening effects of the recent oil price fall on the US shale industry, on past record the US as a voracious consumer of energy will consume most or all of the energy from shales it produces. It is unlikely to be in a position to export much to Europe. The facilities to do this anyway do not exist, and are unlikely to exist for some time if ever.

Other possible sources of gas are problematic to say the least. Production of North Sea gas is falling. Imports of gas from north Africa and the Arabian Gulf are unlikely to be available in anything like the necessary quantity. Gas from Iran is not available for political reasons. Whilst that might eventually change, the probability is when it does that the Iranians (like the Russians) will decide to direct their energy flow eastwards, towards India and China, rather than to Europe.

For obvious reasons of geography Russia is the logical and most economic source of Europe’s gas. All alternatives come with economic and political costs that make them in the end unattractive.

The EU's difficulties in finding alternative sources of gas were cruelly exposed by the debacle of the so-called another Nabucco pipeline project to bring Europe gas from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Though talked about for years in the end it never got off the ground because it never made economic sense.

Meanwhile, whilst Europe talks about diversifying its supplies, it is Russia which is actually cutting the deals.

Russia has sealed a key deal with Iran to swap Iranian oil for Russian industrial goods. Russia has also agreed to invest heavily in the Iranian nuclear industry. If and when sanctions on Iran are lifted the Europeans will find the Russians already there. Russia has just agreed a massive deal to supply gas to Turkey (about which more below). Overshadowing these deals are the two huge deals Russia has made this year to supply gas to China.

Russia's energy resources are enormous but they are not infinite. The second deal done with China and the deal just done with Turkey redirect to these two countries gas that had previously been earmarked for Europe. The gas volumes involved in the Turkish deal almost exactly match those previously intended for South Stream. The Turkish deal replaces South Stream.

These deals show that Russia had made a strategic decision this year to redirect its energy flow away from Europe. Though it will take time for the full effect to become clear, the consequences of that for Europe are grim. Europe is looking at a serious energy shortfall, which it will only be able to make up by buying energy at a much higher price.

These Russian deals with China and Turkey have been criticised or even ridiculed for providing Russia with a lower price for its gas than that paid by Europe.

The actual difference in price is not as great as some allege. Such criticism anyway overlooks the fact that price is only one part in a business relationship.

By redirecting gas to China, Russia cements economic links with the country that it now considers its key strategic ally and which has (or which soon will have) the world’s biggest and fastest growing economy. By redirecting gas to Turkey, Russia consolidates a burgeoning relationship with Turkey of which it is now the biggest trading partner.

Turkey is a key potential ally for Russia, consolidating Russia's position in the Caucasus and the Black Sea. It is also a country of 76 million people with a $1.5 trillion rapidly growing economy, which over the last two decades has become increasingly alienated and distanced from the EU and the West.

By redirecting gas away from Europe, Russia by contrast leaves behind a market for its gas which is economically stagnant and which (as the events of this year have shown) is irremediably hostile. No one should be surprised that Russia has given up on a relationship from which it gets from its erstwhile partner an endless stream of threats and abuse, combined with moralising lectures, political meddling and now sanctions. No relationship, business or otherwise, can work that way and the one between Russia and Europe is no exception.

I have said nothing about the Ukraine since in my opinion this has little bearing on this issue.

South Stream was first conceived because of the Ukraine's continuous abuse of its position as a transit state - something which is likely to continue. It is important to say that this fact was acknowledged in Europe as much as in Russia. It was because the Ukraine perennially abuses its position as a transit state that the South Stream project had the grudging formal endorsement of the EU. Basically, the EU needs to circumvent the Ukraine to secure its energy supplies every bit as much as Russia wanted a route around the Ukraine to avoid it.

The Ukraine’s friends in Washington and Brussels have never been happy about this, and have constantly lobbied against South Stream.

The point is it was Russia which pulled the plug on South Stream when it had the option of going ahead with it by accepting the Europeans’ conditions. In other words the Russians consider the problems posed by the Ukraine as a transit state to be a lesser evil than the conditions the EU was attaching to South Stream .

South Stream would take years to build and its cancellation therefore has no bearing on the current Ukrainian crisis. The Russians decided they could afford to cancel it is because they have decided Russia’s future is in selling its energy to China and Turkey and other states in Asia (more gas deals are pending with Korea and Japan and possibly also with Pakistan and India) than to Europe. Given that this is so, for Russia South Stream has lost its point. That is why in their characteristically direct way, rather than accept the Europeans’ conditions, the Russians pulled the plug on it.

In doing so the Russians have called the Europeans’ bluff. So far from Russia being dependent on Europe as its energy customer, it is Europe which has antagonised, probably irreparably, its key economic partner and energy supplier.

Before finishing I would however first say something about those who have come out worst of all from this affair. These are the corrupt and incompetent political pygmies who pretend to be the government of Bulgaria. Had these people had a modicum of dignity and self respect they would have told the EU Commission when it brought up the Third Energy Package to take a running jump. If Bulgaria had made clear its intention to press ahead with the South Stream project, there is no doubt it would have been built. There would of course have been an almighty row within the EU as Bulgaria openly flouted the Third Energy Package, but Bulgaria would have been acting in its national interests and would have had within the EU no shortage of friends. In the end it would have won through.

Instead, under pressure from individuals like Senator John McCain, the Bulgarian leadership behaved like the provincial politicians they are, and tried to run at the same time with both the EU hare and the Russian hounds. The result of this imbecile policy is to offend Russia, Bulgaria's historic ally, whilst ensuring that the Russian gas which might have flown to Bulgaria and transformed the country, will instead flow to Turkey, Bulgaria's historic enemy.

The Bulgarians are not the only ones to have acted in this craven fashion. All the EU countries, even those with historic ties to Russia, have supported the EU's various sanctions packages against Russia notwithstanding the doubts they have expressed about the policy. Last year Greece, another country with strong ties to Russia, pulled out of a deal to sell its natural gas company to Gazprom because the EU disapproved of it, even though it was Gazprom that offered the best price.

This points to a larger moral. Whenever the Russians act in the way they have just done, the Europeans respond bafflement and anger, of which there is plenty around at the moment. The EU politicians who make the decisions that provoke these Russian actions seem to have this strange assumption that whilst it is fine for the EU to sanction Russia as much as it wishes, Russia will never do the same to the EU. When Russia does, there is astonishment, accompanied always by a flood of mendacious commentary about how Russia is behaving “aggressively” or “contrary to its interests” or has “suffered a defeat”. None of this is true as the rage and recriminations currently sweeping through the EU’s corridors (of which I am well informed) bear witness.

In July the EU sought to cripple Russia’s oil industry by sanctioning the export of oil drilling technology to Russia. That attempt will certainly fail as Russia and the countries it trades with (including China and South Korea) are certainly capable of producing this technology themselves.

By contrast through the deals it has made this year with China, Turkey and Iran, Russia has dealt a devastating blow to the energy future of the EU. A few years down the line Europeans will start to discover that moralising and bluff comes with a price. Regardless, by cancelling South Stream, Russia has imposed upon Europe the most effective of the sanctions we have seen this year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[meeradas]

Poroshenko's sell out of Ukraine goes on: http://www.bloombergview.com/article...eign-ministers

&

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...newest-us-stat

---

For the first time since WW II, overt fascists hold real power in Europe.

[Sophocles]

Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 was passed this month.

Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...nate-bill/2828

«Section 3. Statement of policy regarding Ukraine.

It is the policy of the United States to further assist the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity to deter the Government of the Russian Federation from further destabilizing and invading Ukraine and other independent countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. That policy shall be carried into effect, among other things, through a comprehensive effort, in coordination with allies and partners of the United States where appropriate, that includes economic sanctions, diplomacy, assistance for the people of Ukraine, and the provision of military capabilities to the Government of Ukraine that will enhance the ability of that Government to defend itself and to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of unlawful actions by the Government of the Russian Federation.»

Link: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/me..._Bill_Text.pdf

If someone (lets say psychopaths in the USA and their friends in NATO, EU, Norway etc.) really wants a war with Russia, I think «to further assist the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity» could be the way to do it; by for example reclaiming Crimea back from Russia.

And this: http://novorossia.today/?p=8802

"Ukrainian forces are preparing large-scale attack

Armoured Forces of Ukraine are preparing for the storm of Donbass. Due to the results of the 15th December, proves of it have been found. The concentration of Ukrainian troops on so-called the second frontline have been going on, the part of which has been building, reports the militia with a sign call Samur.

According to the information of the resource, different military subdivisions are concentrating to the West of Mariinka in the Kurahovo region, behind Krasnogorovka, to the North-West of Karlovka water basin, and near Mariupol."

[Sophocles]

U.S. Gov’t. Seeks Excuse to Attack Russia

By Eric Zuesse

"December 17, 2014 "ICH" - The world is more nervous about the drift toward nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia than at any time since 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis. When French President Francois Hollande urgently side-tracked his return-flight from a diplomatic mission recently, in order to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport, at a private room that had been scoured ahead of time to eliminate any possible bugging devices, there was speculation as to what had caused Hollande’s sudden detour, and there were even rumors of a possible cause being an American “false-flag” event in the works to be blamed on Russia as a pretext for going to war against Russia, just as Russia had been falsely blamed for the Ukrainian military’s downing of Malaysia’s airliner MH17 on July 17th. All that was publicly released about the two-hour meeting were platitudes, hardly anything that would have justified side-tracking Hollande’s flight so as to surprise intelligence agencies and be able to meet the Russian leader in an untapped room.

The level of fear is certainly rising on both sides. On the U.S. side, the CBS News Poll in summer 2007 found 6% of Americans calling Russia an “enemy”; seven years later, that same figure was 22%. However, what is not rumor nor fear, but proven fact, by Obama’s own actions as will be documented here, is that he wants a war against Russia and is trying hard to get Europe (including Hollande) onboard with this goal in order to win it; and that America’s Republican Party want this at least as much as he does, though the American public do not.

The Democratic Party (in the House and Senate) are staying as quiet as possible about a ‘Democratic’ President pushing them toward World War III, which is a goal that Republicans have always been far more eager for than Democrats. (Republicans are famous for “Speak softly but carry a big stick,” and for swinging it as hard as they can, especially against Russians.) In fact, one of the reasons why Obama won the Presidency is that he criticized his 2012 Republican opponent Mitt Romney for saying of Russia, “This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

That dissent by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama appealed to the U.S. public at the time, but not to America’s aristocracy, who are a mix of people some of whom hate Russians and others of whom don’t care about Russians, but none of whom are passionate opponents of nuclear war (a diverse group that they lump contemptuously with “peaceniks”).

For example, one major mouthpiece of Democratic Party aristocrats has always been The New Republic, and on 17 September 2014 they headlined “Obama Can’t Admit That Romney Was Right: Russia Is Our ‘Top Geopolitical Threat’.” Another one is the National Journal, the aristocracy’s version of its companion propaganda-operation (owned by the same aristocrat as) The Atlantic. On 7 May 2014 (just five days after Obama’s people had massacred pro-Russians in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa and thereby started the extermination-campaign against them, or “civil war” that’s still raging), the National Journal headlined “Mitt Romney Was Right: Russia Is Our Biggest Geopolitical Foe.” Conservative ‘Democrats’ are just Republicans spelled with a “D”; but, when it’s an aristocrat, they know how to spell, and are just trying to deceive the ones who don’t. This is why ‘liberal’ magazines are prized possessions of the aristocracy — to deceive the ones who don’t know the difference and who think that it’s fine in a democracy for politics to be merely a choice between two conservative parties, one of which is called by a meaningless adjective ‘liberal.’

The people who fund both political Parties are virtually united in that fascist belief: they don’t even mind backing racist facists or “nazis”; many of them are precisely that themselves.

Obama is with them (and with Wall Street, and with Big Ag, and Big Oil, and Big Military), against the public. But he’s smart enough a politician to pretend otherwise, and his aristocratic funders respect this. (There were no hard feelings for his exploiting Romney’s politically stupid public assertion; they knew that it was an Obama pose: he’s a ‘Democrat,’ after all.)

For America’s elite, the Cold War never ended, because it was never really about communism versus capitalism — not for them. They are fascists, and they want global dominance. Capitalism, shmapitalism; all they really care about is dominating the world, destroying enemies, which means anyone who refuses to be controlled by them.

Aristocracy hasn’t changed since, well, long before the Bible began. Domination is the big thing, for the aristocracy. Russia threatens the vaunted global control by America’s aristocracy, their dominance over all other aristocracies, because Russia is the second-most-powerful military nation. Russia is the only nation that can say no to U.S. aristocrats and (maybe) get away with it. That’s what this conflict is all about. It’s why they ratcheted up the “enemy” figure for Russia from 6% to 22% in just the past seven years.

As President Obama’s speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, propagandized for (i.e., rationalized) this conquer-Russia view on the part of America’s aristocracy: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” So, Obama made clear to the graduating West Point cadets that the BRIC countries are the enemy (Russia and its leading supporters of international independence, the enemies against a mono-polar or “hegemonic” world), from the standpoint of America’s aristocracy, whom the U.S. military now serves to the exclusion of any public interest. Ours want to crush the aristocrats in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Though it’s alright for those other countries to produce more, that’s true only if American aristocrats control the local ones there, like in any other international empire — not if the local nation’s aristocrats control the country. That’s not the way aristocrats in banana republics are supposed to behave. They’re not supposed to beindependent countries. Not really.

The President who had invaded Libya and Syria, and re-invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and who perpetrated a violent overthrow and installed racist fascists (nazis) in control of Ukraine, is lecturing the world against “Russia’s aggression,” for its having accepted back into Russia’s traditional fold little Crimea, which craved to return to Russia.

He’s got some gall to do that, but in order to be a cadet at West Point (and thus be there hearing his speech) one needed to be either a sucker or else a cravenous tool of the aristocracy, as the military has traditionally served; so, Obama played them for being both, and they evidently liked it.

Obama knows how to speak down to an audience and fool them into thinking he respects them. But, to aristocrats, his respect is no mere act at all; he not only respects them, he lies for them, and he protects them, because he self-identifies with them, and not with the public (who just provide his voters, the people that are forced to choose between him versus Romney, or else to go for a mere token protest-vote or non-vote, such as American ‘democracy’ has degenerated into being).

Obama was enemy-izing (turning into enemies) nations that don’t want to serve as America’s banana republics. Similarly, for example, the British Empire didn’t wish for local aristocrats in India to be in control, but only for those client aristocrats to be of use. That’s what it means to be a client nation (or, in the American case, a banana republic).

Obama, in his speech, added, placing a clear hyper-nationalistic coloration on his promotion of America’s empire: “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” (Hitler thought the same thing of Germany.) He promised to keep it that way: “That has been true for the century passed [sp.: past [[somebody at the White House didn’t know the difference between ‘past’ and ‘passed’]] and it will be true for the century to come.” (At least he wasn’t predicting there a Thousand-Year Reich.)

So: that’s historical background to Obama’s plan for using Ukraine as a stepping-stone toward conquering Russia — one of the few favors he hasn’t yet achieved for his sponsors, after having protected them from what he contemptuously calls (in private) the “pitchforks”; a.k.a., the public. (And he really did call us “pitchforks” there, in private. To him, the public were like the KKK; and the mega-bank CEOs whom he was confiding to were like the people KKKers lynched. That’s the type of ‘Black’ he actually is. Blacks should loathe him, but most people, black and white, can’t see beyond his skin-color and liberal platitudes. They’ve got their categories wrong, and the aristocracy-controlled media like that just fine. Stereotypes help aristocrats control political outcomes. It’s button-pushing for them.)

On December 11th, the U.S. Senate voted 100% (unanimously) to donate U.S. weapons to the Ukrainian Government in its war against Russia. On December 4th, 98% of the U.S. House had done likewise. Both bills also accuse Russia of having invaded Ukraine, and this accusation of an aggressive Russia provides a pretext for the U.S. to attack Russia, now that the Ukrainian Government has flipped from neutral (according to some estimations) or pro-Russian (according to others) to being clearly and publicly anti-Russian, by means of their U.S.-engineered coup that occurred in February of this year, when masked gunmen, who were actually hired mercenaries, dressed themselves as if they were instead Ukrainian security forces, and fired into a crowd of “Maidan” anti-corruption protesters and police, and the U.S. Government immediately blamed Ukraine’s then-President for doing that, and Ukraine’s parliament or “Rada,” who weren’t in on the scheme and didn’t know about it, promptly elected “Yats” Yatsenyuk, who had secretly been appointed 18 days prior to lead the country, by Victoria Nuland of the U.S. State Department. “Yats” immediately installed a far-right Government, filled with people who had already committed themselves to a Ukrainian war against Russia. They then promptly set about terminating Russia’s 42-year Crimean lease for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which is key to Russia’s security. Crimeans, who had always overwhelmingly considered themselves to be Russians and not Ukrainians, demonstrated against that Ukrainian move against them and against Russia, and Russian troops came into Crimea, to local applause, but to the condemnation from Washington and its allies.

Russia’s taking back Crimea was not aggression at all, though America’s noise-media say it was; it was instead protection of Crimeans against the CIA’s American invasion of Ukraine. When the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev donated Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, it was much to the consternation of Crimeans at the time, and ever since. Yet, one of the explicit alleged ‘justifications’ for war against Russia, that are listed in the Republican House’s bill (“Whereas the Russian Federation’s forcible occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea. …”) is a blatant lie, because Crimeans overwhelmingly wanted Russia’s protection against the new, Obama-imposed, Ukrainian regime, which Obama’s State Department and CIA had just installed when overthrowing the President for whom nearly 80% of Crimeans had voted. In fact, a poll that was issued by Gallup in June 2014 showed then that 71.3% of Crimeans viewed as “Mostly positive” the role of Russia there, and 4.0% viewed it as “Mostly negative”; by contrast, only 2.8% viewed the role of the United States there as “Mostly positive,” and a whopping 76.2% viewed it as “Mostly negative.” This wasn’t much changed from a year-earlier Gallup poll. The Republican Party (and thus the Republican-controlled House) is willing to lie blatantly (about this and other crucial matters) in order to justify invading Russia, as it did in invading Iraq in 2003 (and even in 1991); and Barack Obama is willing to lie blatantly too for the same reasons — such as about the sourceof the sarin gas attack in Libya, etc. — but there were enough Democrats in the U.S. Senate to block Obama’s getting such blatant lies into the Senate’s bill on Ukraine, so it’s much milder, even though it does give the Ukrainian Government $450 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money. However, when Republicans take over the Senate in January, their bill will match the House’s in its warmongering lies, and Obama will get all he wants for his planned war against Russia (not just the $450 million that the Democratic-controlled Senate bill has provided).

So, now, both the Senate and the House, plus the U.S. President (via his State Department, CIA, FBI, and entire Administration), are actually at war, a hot war not a cold war, against Russia, through their proxy, their made-in-Washington, racist-fascist or nazi, Government of Ukraine, which currently is doing the fighting and the killing and the dying, but which couldn’t do it but for that Western backing.

This should be analogized to Fidel Castro’s takeover of Cuba and his and Soviet leader Khrushchev’s attempt to base near the U.S., Soviet nuclear missiles aimed against America. At that time, in 1962, U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said that we’d go to war against the USSR if necessary to prevent this; and today Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has implied, but not yet said, that his country will likewise go to war against the United States if necessary to stop its attempt to do against Russia what Khrushchev had been stopped from doing against the U.S. in 1962.

However, the U.S. is now already farther along the warpath than the USSR had been in 1962. Already, many thousands of deaths have resulted from Ukraine’s war against Russia and against its supporters inside what had previously been parts of Ukraine. In 1962, Cuba was at peace, except for a few bands of U.S.-backed Cubans, who were trying to overthrow Fidel Castro. Ukraine is today’s Cuba, but even more of a danger. And, this time, the United States Government is trying to impose nuclear supremacy; the Soviet Union and its communism no longer even exist, and Russia is up against the mortal threat that is being wrongfully perpetrated by the U.S. against them.

Clearly, U.S. President Obama was serious when he tossed out Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych; and clearly he has the full backing of the U.S. Congress (though with some hesitation on the part of Democrats) to go to war against Russia and finish the job that he has begun.

If it weren’t for the ongoing donations — officially loans, but ‘loans’ to an already-bankrupt Government are donations — by both U.S. taxpayers and EU taxpayers, that are channeled mainly through the U.S. and EU and IMF, Ukraine would simply stop its hot war against Russia and against its own ethnic Russians; and the Ukrainian Government that we installed in February would just collapse. The IMF and EU seem likely now to have ended their donations, but U.S. taxpayers certainly haven’t ended ours.We’ve barely even started, though, ever since 1991, U.S. taxpayers have already invested “over five billion dollars” in this scheme to bring ‘democracy’ to Ukraine, even before Obama’s successful February coup provided the capstone to that entire Orwellian effort: America’s aristocracy and its hired hands call this‘democracy.’

The investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has published his analysis of the American aristocrats, ranging from the Kochs on the right to the Soroses on the left, who are lobbying for this campaign to get taxpayers to fund the American aristocracy’s military take-over of other nations’ aristocracies and resources. Madsen sees as being the few politicians in Washington who are resisting that, both Ron Paul (and definitely not his son Rand Paul) libertarians, and Dennis Kucinich progressives.
Madsen doesn’t note, however, that both of those men are now retired; so, they can afford to speak the truth without losing their jobs, since they’ve already lost them. Among the U.S. aristocracy that finances politicians into federal offices, there is no visible support whatsoever for such dissidents challenging the aristocracy: when one of them somehow manages to get into the political system, they’re removed from it, in one way or another, before they can do any damage to the U.S. aristocracy.

This is how it came to be that 98% of the House and 100% of the Senate voted for war against Russia, even though at least 67% of the American public who expressed an opinion about that in a Pew poll were opposed (and this 67% figure might have been far higher if the question had been more directly asked, such as: “Should the U.S. go to war against Russia in order to enable Ukraine to get back Crimea and conquer the rebelling regions in Ukraine’s own former southeast?”).
This America is supposed to be a ‘democracy,’ in which 99% of Congress and the President want taxpayers to be required to donate to the Ukrainian military, but less than one-third of the American public want to make those donations. Is it instead actually taxation without representation — a modern fascist form of the very oligarchy that America’s Founders went to war against and defeated in order to create America? How much more of a demonstration needs to be made that today’s America is a dictatorship, not a representative democracy or republic? Only media pretend it’s not a dictatorship, because they’re part of it, owned by the same people who heisted our Government and who trade favors with one-another against us. Clearly, this is an us-versus-them situation in which oligarchs are the aggressors, who destroyed American democracy, and from which a democracy now must again be seized, because it has been stolen from us and will not be retaken without a fight.

Madsen also has an interesting explanation as to why Israel is so passionately supportive of the racist-fascist, or nazi, Ukrainian political parties that the Obama Administration has placed in control of Ukraine.

Regardless of such speculations and evidence, however, there is nothing speculative about the American Government’s drive to nuclear war.

It’s part and parcel of the same deal that just passed in the U.S. Congress and was signed by the President, that in the event of any future U.S. financial crash, FDIC-insured bank accounts won’t be paid until and unless the mega-banks that hold derivatives contracts get full payment on all of those gambling policies they had bought — i.e, never. Granny’s savings account will get emptied out to pay Wall Street’s gambling-debts. (Not that the U.S. ‘news’ media ever made such things clear to the public. But how do you think we had managed to obtain a Congress and a President like these are? The public had to be fooled by the aristocrats’ propaganda, and the ‘news’ media had to help aristocrats fool them about it, because the ‘news’ media receive their funding from aristocrats, both as their owners and as their advertisers. The public are just pawns on their chessboard. This is what became of democracy: it’s merely the residual verbal shell — ‘democracy’ — an Orwellian opposite of the original meaning.)

As Obama told the mega-bank chiefs on 27 March 2009 in private, “I’m protecting you … My Administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

He’s going to teach those granny-bank-account “pitchforks,” and such, a thing or two about “the one indispensable nation.” Namely: those people in it, the public, are dispensable, even if not quite as much so as are the people his forces are slaughtering (ethnically cleansing) in southeast Ukraine and other such places, where the ‘real riffraff’ live. The people in those areas are punished and killed for the crime of living where “the right people” want them simply to be gone (preferably
dead, but otherwise refugees in Russia, until the ICBMs kill them).

“Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.” But it’s long since gone, and is now aiming to clear out land elsewhere, especially southeast Ukraine, to place nuclear missiles there.

America’s ‘entrepreneurs’ have work to do, across the globe; and all the charred remains of the nuclear ‘victory’ will be passed on to their proud heirs.

It’s the new American way, the way of ‘entrepreneurs’ — a.k.a. “the aristocracy” — but actually only the ‘entrepreneurs’ who have been able to grab the most, who are billionaires. Only insiders can apply for admission. Outsiders can apply for a job, nothing more.

Obama had it all figured out. Everything else from him was just an act. He is the personification of cynicism, and of lies.

If you don’t think so, then how do you explain his, and this, and this, and this? Are those just innocent tragedies; and, if not, then who was the most indispensable person toward causing them to happen — causing them to be imposed by the Ukrainian Government that Obama’s coup imposed upon Ukraine? Obama’s decisions were essential in order to empower the people who are perpetrating this extermination-campaign, which is the bait intended to draw Vladimir Putin into a Ukrainian conflict so as to provide a pretext for an American nuclear attack against Russia — as if Russia doesn’t have even more of a legitimate national-security interest in its Ukrainian neighbor than the U.S. had in its Cuban neighbor in 1962, when we rightly threatened nuclear war over that type of provocation.

If the next U.S. President protects Obama from criminal prosecution for Ukraine like Obama protected Bush from criminal prosecution for Iraq, then the U.S. is hopelessly a lawless nation, no democracy at all.

Unfortunately, the nuclear bombs in the war that Obama and the other stooges of America’s aristocracy are building up to, will not be targeted against themselves and their psychopathic (often billionaire) sponsors. Those people will instead have their bomb-shelters, and their corporate jets.

Oligarchs are foreign to a democracy. Consequently, their servants in government, especially America’s current and former President, are foreign to the U.S. Constitution, and to their Oath of Office, and thus to this country, irrespective of their technical citizenship as ‘American.’ They should both be brought up on charges of treason against the United States of America; for, if they are not, then truly democracy is ended in this country, with no hope of restoration, and America’s Presidents are not subject to American Law, but instead stand above it, beyond it, and immune from it. That makes them dictators, but for whom, and against whom? The record speaks for itself.

Reader-comments to this commentary, pro-and-con, are invited regarding this conclusion, especially because a public forum to discuss this severe matter is needed now — a turning-point in American, and (sad to say), perhaps also (if a nuclear attack occurs) a turning-point in global history. That’s the case regardless of which side of this debate one is on. The fundamental character of this country is at stake now. The public should have a say in it (if that’s still even possible, given that 99% of the media are in the hands of oligarchs — the very same aristocrats who benefit from the status-quo).

Nuclear war is a serious matter, and the American Government must immediately halt their plan to provoke it. The time to force a halt to that is now, or else it will be never. Every step we get closer to nuclear war makes reversing the direction, which is toward war, even more difficult, and less likely, and makes nuclear war even likelier than it was before.If the public is to take charge (assuming that doing so is still possible), it will happen sooner rather than later.

The public discussion will begin now, if it begins at all.

We’re close to the precipice. Will the public remain quiet?"

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Link: http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle40502.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Links are avilable at the original link.

[Sophocles]

Documentary: «Donbass under fire: Separatists»

«Max Fadeyev documentary.

People surviving, living, fighting in Donetsk. November-December 2014»

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7GzOaIXnkPs

11.20 mark: (Fighter speaking)

-No one has filmed here, you`re the first one to film these exclusive shots.

-That`s the new terminal, you can film it if you want.

11.39: (Fighter speaking)

-This (weapon) was taken from the Ukranian separatists. They are separatists, not us.

-And we speak Ukranian language perfectly. And they are saying something about «terrorists», «separatists»...

15.10: (Woman speaking)

-We`ve only restored the roof two weeks ago. «Grad» fell at us, both halves of house broken and today the mortar shell fell here. Thanks to these guys, they extinguished the fire. They shell us every day, every day. Lots, lots of residental houses suffered damage. Not just many, lots of...

I`d like to address people who live in Kiev; stop donating money for your army. Your support for them only destroyed everything for us. We`re the same people as you are, we haven`t done anything wrong. We all are just pawns in someone else`s game. We have children too, who are now hiding in the basements, for nothing. Shells fall at us every day. Kievans, please, hear me. I`m a mother...

16.13: (Man speaking)

-I used to study in the 69th school. It got bombed, people died too. There, right near my yard, 4 shells fell. One hit the bus, 2 persons were killed there too, 6 injured, another fell in the yard next to mine, one fell right in my yard and one in the house.

28.00: (Fighter speaking)

-Russian people are not only ethnic russians, it`s a mutli-ethnic country, right, bruh? I`m ethnic german, and my callsign is Nyemets («German»). And he over there has another ethnicity, right? Greek. See? Greek, you see?

28.52: (Fighter speaking)

-We leave our families to be here. We love freedom so much that we have to abanbon something sacred, something dear to us. I came here so I could freely speak my language.

36.28: (Man at the opera speaking)

-They will never calm down, the Anglo-Saxons don`t want to leave us alone, you see? It has always been like that. Russia is like a thorn in their side.

46.34: (Fighter speaking)

-Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. America... The same thing happened with Georgia. And now here, in Ukraine.

47.36: (Teacher Vladislav Rusanov speaking)

-More than 80% of professors have stayed, they did not leave. Professors with academic degrees and colossal experience, 50 years of teaching. And we are all ready to teach students, provide them education. And nonetheless, they say that our diplomas wouldn`t be recognized in.. at least Ukraine, for example. Well, they scare us with that they won`t be recognized around the world, but it`s hardly going to be so. Because we already have negotiations with Russia, and completely serious, we are supported by the Council of Rectors of Russian Federation. And the diplomas of at least our university will be recognized on the territory of the Russian Federation, that`s for sure.

[jackovesk]

I have come to the following ((CONCLUSION))

The ((UNDERLYING REASON)) as to WHY? Al Qaeda - ISIS - ISIL & IS were created is simply this.....

They are just a ((FRONT)) to create a ((DIVERSIONARY COVER)) to enable the CABAL to secretly ((STRIP)) the Middle-East of their RICHES/ASSETS both monetary & archeological...

That's it in a ((NUTSHELL))...

...as ((CRAZY)) as it sounds, it all boils down to ((MONEY, POWER & GREED))...

[Sophocles]

IS announces execution of Russian intelligence agents
Publication time: 13 January 2015, 23:28

"The press service of the Dawla al-Islamiyya/Islamic State (IS) circulated on the Internet a video of the execution of two men who were called Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti/Federal Security Service (FSS) agents. The video has been removed from the YouTube, but it remained at the other video sharing service.

The video shows how two men introduced themselves as Dzhambulat Mamayev, born in 1976, and Sergei Ashimov, born in 1984, admit that they worked for the FSB. They pronounce the names of their supervisors and talk about their tasks in the Middle East.

Conversation on video with Mamayev and Ashimov was conducted in Russian and subtitled in English and Arabic. Mamayev said that his task was to gather information about Russian-speaking members of the IS. Ashimov, in turn, said that he had to find and kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

After that, an armed man, who does not hide his face, makes a short speech and warns all future spies. Then a boy, previously standing near the man, shot both men, who had their hands tied behind and were kneeling, at point blank to the backs of their heads.

FSS does not comment on the video."

Department of Monitoring
Kavkaz Center

Link: http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/...13/19874.shtml

And then, from buzzfeed.com:

"The video, which appeared to be staged, is directed at audiences in Russia and Russian-speaking Central Asian countries where ISIS is said to be gaining a foothold."

Link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/ne...-russian-spies

PS! I know kavkazcenter.com is anti-russia, so everything from that site has to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Sophocles]

"It's the biggest, even strategic mistake of the Ukrainian authorities to bank on a military solution to the crisis in Ukrainian society and to all of southeast Ukraine's problems. This can lead to irreversible consequences for Ukrainian statehood," Grigory Karasin, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.

Link: http://rt.com/news/224119-eastern-ukraine-arms-pullout/

[Hervé]

Ukrainian deputy exposes plans for civil unrest and war in 2013

YouTube
Wed, 28 Jan 2015 02:55 CET

This video, from November 20, 2013, shows People's Deputy of Ukraine Oleg Tsarov explaining in the Ukrainian parliament U.S. plans for civil unrest and civil war in Ukraine. This was the night before the protests began (on November 21).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM

See below for the transcript.

Deputy Oleg Tsarov has the word.

Honourable colleagues, Honourable Vladimir Vasiljevitch,

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists of the public organisation "Volya" turned to me, providing clear evidence that within our territory, with support and direct participation of the US Embassy in Kiev, the "TechCamp" project is realised, under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

The "TechCamp" project prepares specialists for information warfare and the discrediting of state institutions using modern media, potential revolutionaries for organising protests, and the toppling of the State Order.

The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt.

After the conversation with the organisation "Volya" I have learned that they succeeded to access facilities in the project "TechCamp" disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on peculiarities of modern media were held.

American instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine, radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting.

American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks used to organise protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

"TechCamp" representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far. About 300 people were trained as operatives, which are now active throughout Ukraine. The last conference "TechCamp" took place on 14 and 15 November 2013 in the Heart of Kiev on the territory of the US Embassy!

You tell me which country in the world would allow an NGO to operate out of the ​US Embassy?

This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian government, and against the Ukrainian People!

I appeal to the Constitutional Authorities of Ukraine with the following question:

Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organise the "TechCamp" conferences misuse their diplomatic mission?

- - Let him speak - -

- - Carry on - -

UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs one, two and five.

I ask you to consider this as an official beseech to pursue an investigation of this case.

Thank You!

[Sophocles]

U.S. Embassy Hosted TechCamp Kyiv 2.0 to Build Technological Capacity of Civil Society

March 1, 2013

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv in partnership with Microsoft Ukraine hosted TechCamp Kyiv 2.0 on March 1, 2013 at the Microsoft Ukraine Headquarters. TechCamps support the U.S. State Department’s Civil Society 2.0 initiative that builds the technological and digital capacity of civil society organizations around the world...

To date, State Department sponsored TechCamps in Ukraine have trained more than 200 civil society organizers from throughout the country and Belarus. The technologies and approaches presented help to build new networks of relationships, enhance skill development, and create new avenues for communication. Adoption of these technologies by civil society organizations will help support the missions of these groups as well as broader social goals of democracy, transparency and good governance in the 21st Century...

Source; ukraine.usembassy.gov

Link: http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/events/...2013-kyiv.html

Pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usemba...7633190416346/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassykyiv/sets/

[Calz]

It's time for Iran to turn away from the West



Paul Craig Roberts
paulcraigroberts.org
Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:08 CET

Comment: As Roberts notes below, the U.S. is using the nuclear issue as a propaganda measure to demonize Iran to the public. The mainstream media is all too willing to be the mouthpiece of this propaganda campaign, providing no balance or objectivity. The U.S. is only interested in controlling nation-states so as to further enrich themselves and further their goals of a global fascist dictatorship. Iran's best chance to keep sovereign control of their country is to embrace the multi-polar ideology that Russia and China are attempting to spread around the world.

From all appearances, the Obama regime's negotiations with Iran, overseen by Russia, were on the verge of ending the contrived nuclear issue. An end to the confrontation is unacceptable to the Zionist Israeli government and to their neocon agents in America. The Republicans, a political party owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Israel Lobby, hastily invited Netanyahu, the crazed ruler of both Israel and America, to quickly come to tell the Republican Congress, which the insouciant American voters put in place, how to prohibit any accommodation with Iran.

Observing the Israeli-controlled Republican Congress, a collection of warmongers, taking steps to prevent any peaceful resolution of a fabricated issue, Iran's leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei sent a letter to Western youth advising the youth of the Western world of the mischaracterization of Islam by Western propagandists.

I respect Khamenei's effort to reach out to Western youth in order to help them differentiate the reality of Islam from the demonized portrait painted of Islam by Western politicians and media.

The question is: How much impact can Khamenei have? Khamenei's voice is important, but it is small in comparison to the Western liars and propagandists. Even an important representative, such as Khamenei, of a demonized country and a demonized religion can hardly be heard over the din of propaganda against Iran and Islam.

Moreover, secret Western black op organizations can conduct terrorist operations in the name of Islam, such as possibly occurred with 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and Charlie Hebdo. The world is told that Islam is behind these attacks, but experts note that no real evidence is ever supplied. Just official assertions, such as those that proved incorrect about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, the false accusations against Gaddafi in Libya, and the false accusations against Russia in Ukraine. The makers of this propaganda have many voices, and their trumpets overwhelm the voice of Iran's leader.

Instead of appealing to the West, Iran needs to turn away from the West. The historical time of the West has passed.

The West has devolved into a police state in which government is no longer accountable to law or to the people. There are no jobs for young people, and no income security for the elderly. The West is actually in the process of looting itself. Just look at what is happening in Greece. In order to guarantee the profits of the private banks from outside Greece, the Greek people have had their pensions cut, their employment cut, their social services cut, and they have had to sell their valuable public properties at low prices to private purchasers from outside their country. The same looting is now going on in Ukraine, and Italy, Spain, and Portugal face the identical fate.

In America the entire economic policy of the country is conducted only for the benefit of the super-rich One Percent.

If we use J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as a metaphor for the West, the West is Mordor and Washington is Sauron.

It is pointless for Iran to negotiate with the West in hopes of gaining acceptance. Iran is on the same list as Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad. The only way Iran can be accepted by the West is to consent to being an American puppet state. Suspicion about Iran's nuclear energy program is a contrived issue. If it were not the nuclear issue, it would be some other contrived issue, such as weapons of mass destruction, use of chemical weapons, terrorism, and so forth. Iran's leaders should understand that the real problem is Iran's independence of Washington's foreign and economic policies. Washington cannot say that the US wants regime change in Iran because Washington wants a puppet state, so Washington pretends that Iran represents a threat that must be overcome.

If Iran so much admires the decadent and corrupt West that it is willing to be a servile vassal in order to enjoy Western acceptance, all Iran needs to do is to capitulate and align with Washington's hegemonic policies.

If Iran, one of the two oldest civilizations and cultures on the planet, wishes to continue its existence without coming under the rule of the "exceptional" Americans, Iran must turn its back to the West, ally with Russia, China, India, and the other BRICS countries, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Western criminals. It is beyond explanation why a civilization as old as the Iranian one would see anything in the West worthy of being associated with.

Above all, Iran should stop fighting other Muslims, even extreme ones who betray the Prophet Mohammed and soil Islam. Iran should not accept the role of being Washington's mercenary in the fight against the Islamic State. Iran should never help Washington kill Muslims, even misguided ones who betray the Prophet. Instead, Iran should understand that the Islamic State, even if it should be a creation of Washington, is enjoying its success because Muslim peoples are tired of being ruled by the West, which uses the antagonism between Sunni and Shi'ite to rule them both.

If the Islamic State is a Western creation, the Muslims who support it are not. The Islamic state is supported by Muslims because the Muslim people are tired of being ruled and ruined by America, Great Britain, and the French.

Khamenei should forget about America, where evil has taken hold and about which Khamenei can do nothing. Khamenei should try to unify the Muslim peoples and turn them in a new direction.

Islam is weak because it is not unified. For centuries Muslims, divided by ancient political claims, have permitted their religious differences to make them pawns of other powers. It requires leadership to repair a sectarian split, and that is the leadership Iran should attempt to provide. Iran cannot provide leadership by imposing its view. A unifying compromise among Muslims must be made. Fighting on the side of the Americans against the Islamic State perpetuates the split and seals the fate of Muslim peoples as colonies of the West.

The problems that Muslims face might be too large for leadership to rectify. Not only are Muslims afflicted by their internal split, Muslim populations in the West are now positioned by propaganda such that their leaders are compelled to support war against the Islamic State and Iran in order to protect Muslim communities from pogroms. Have history and propaganda made Muslims forever a colonized people?


http://www.sott.net/article/291966-I...-from-the-West

[Hervé]

UAF launches two Tochka-U ballistic missiles on Donetsk and Gorlovka, but they break apart midflight

January 28, 2015
Cassad
Translated by Kristina Rus

Two installations of "Tochka U" today left the airfield at Kramatorsk, in the direction of Druzhkovka. Firing positions were between Kramatorsk and Druzhkovka near the village of Kamyshevakha.

Rumble at startup and the flying missiles were seen and heard by the residents of Konstantinovka, Druzhkovka, Alekseev-Druzhkovka and several other settlements.

The direction of launch: Donetsk, Gorlovka. The first launch was made at 16:00, the second at 18:30.

Due to outdated components of the missiles and not without the help of providence (God is still with us!), both missiles had not reached their targets, having broken off in the sky in the vicinity of Gorlovka.

Exact time of launch and location of the explosion of the missiles in the air need to be verified further.

The main targets for Tochka short-range ballistic missile system (NATO Designation SS-21 Scarab) are airfields, command posts, support facilities, air defense batteries, bridges and troops concentrations.

The Tochka can carry conventional, nuclear or chemical warheads. Maximum range of fire is 70 km. It has a CEP of 160 m. A standard missile is 6.4 m long and weights 2 000 kg. Warhead weights about 480 kg, depending on the type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe "they" were trying to provide "evidence" the Russians did it and is proof of a Russian invasion of Ukraine...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ukrainian Parliament declares Russia as an agressor

Photo: Pravda January 27, 2015

Rostislav Ishchenko - Pravda.ru
Translated by Krisitna Rus


The Verkhovna Rada with 271 votes officially recognized Russia as an aggressor. The MPs also called on the international community for the implementation of all measures to stop the military aggression against Ukraine, for strengthening of sanctions against the Russian Federation as a country that supports aggression on the territory of Ukraine, and declare DPR and LPR terrorist organizations. What is the reason of this decision, what it means and what the consequences might be, spoke the President of the Center of System Analysis and Forecasting, Rostislav Ishchenko in an interview to Pravda.Ru.

"Rada not only recognized Russia as an aggressor, but also recommended that the President actually declares war on Russia. That is, in this situation, Kiev regime, except for individuals looking for a personal gain, seeks to formalize the state of war with Russia. Ukraine has long said that it is at war with Russia," - said Rostislav Ishchenko.

"But as the Russian army did not show up on the battlefield, Rada is trying to formalize it, believes the expert. "I understand that during the meeting of the Security and Defense Council, Poroshenko was pressured to declare martial law. When he resisted, they continued to push. Either they will force him, or else without him the Parliament or government of Ukraine will somehow formalize a state of war with Russia."

Responding to the question, whether he expects NATO to help Ukraine, Rostislav Ishchenko told Pravda.Ru that the alliance is unlikely to be involved in the fighting in Ukraine. "By the way, to declare war on Russia - does not mean that Russia will go to war. So far, Novorossia army can cope with the Ukrainian troops. Another thing is that Ukraine and the United States want to have an additional trump card for international organizations, in their discussions with the European Union, to represent Russia as an aggressor," - said Rostislav Ishchenko.

Therefore, he said, it is "actually a gesture of despair." "Because they were trying to force Russia to take an active part in the hostilities on the territory of Ukraine for the entire year. Because it didn't work, now the Parliament declares that Russia is the aggressor, Rada might as well vote for the fact that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East," - finished Rostislav Ishchenko.

Translators Note:

Now we know the reason for Mariupol provocation.

[Hervé]

Putin's Unexpected Victory: Europe Furious That Greece Is Now A Russian Sanctions Veto

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/29/2015 09:57 -0500


Two days ago, Zero Hedge first, and shortly thereafter everyone else, pointed out something stunning: the biggest surprise to emerge so far out of the new anti-Troika/austerity Greek government was not so much its intention to proceed with the first test of "Odious Debt" - this was largely known in advance - but its dramatic pivot away from Germany and Europe, and toward Russia.

As we noted before, not only has Greece already blocked all ongoing privatization processes, a clear snub of Merkel and the Troika which demands the piecemeal blue light special sale of Greece to western buyers as part of the "bailout", but is also looking at plans to reinstate public sector employees and announce increased pensions for those on low incomes: further clear breaches of the Troika's austerity terms.

But the most important message that Tsipras is sending to Europe is that (after meeting the Russian ambassador first upon his election) Greece is now effectively a veto power when it comes to future Russian sanctions!

This was first hinted when the Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias, who arrives in Brussels today to discuss possible additional sanctions on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine, said a few days ago that the Greek government disagreed with an EU statement in which President Donald Tusk raised the prospect of “further restrictive measures” on Russia. As Bloomberg observed before, in recent months, Kotzias wrote on Twitter that sanctions against Russia weren’t in Greece’s interests. He said in a blog that a new foreign policy for Greece should be focused on stopping the ongoing transformation of the EU “into an idiosyncratic empire, under the rule of Germany.”

And Europe, shocked that one of its own has dared to question its "unanimous" policy toward Russia, a policy driven by the US foreign state department whose opinion of Europe is best captured by the hacked and intercepted "**** the EU" outburst by Victoria Nuland in February 2014, has been forced to backtrack. From DPA:

The European Union denied Wednesday that it ignored Greek objections when it issued a statement raising the prospects of new sanctions against Russia.

The row is the first of several clashes expected between Brussels and Greece's new prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, who was elected Sunday on promises to renegotiate the bailout granted to Greece by its European neighbours and the International Monetary Fund.

Tsipras has in the past also spoken out against sanctions on Russia, rejecting the use of "Cold War language."

The EU has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis, notably economic measures restricting Russian access to European credit markets and European exports. On Tuesday morning, EU leaders in a joint statement tasked their foreign ministers with considering "further restrictive measures" when they meet on Thursday.

But Tsipras complained to Greek media that his country had not been consulted on the statement. "Greece do not consent," a statement by Tsipras' office said on Tuesday evening, adding that the announcement from Brussels violated "proper procedure."

A spokesman for EU President Donald Tusk, who issued the statement on behalf of the leaders, denied that Athens had been sidelined during the preparation of the text.

"We consulted everybody, as we always do, and we didn't ignore or sidestep Greece in any way - quite to the contrary," Preben Aamann told dpa. "We tried to find a special solution that would accommodate them."

Actually what the EU "always does" is to ignore the voices and interest of everyone but the most powerful. And as for "not ignoring" Greece, apparently the EU failed. Only this time Greece, its government no longer a Eurozone lackey, will no longer let it slide: "Greek broadcaster Skai said newly appointed Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias would bring up the issue at Thursday's meeting in Brussels. Tsipras is also expected in the Belgian capital on February 12 for an EU summit that will touch upon the situation in Ukraine."

And here is how Russia just won another completely unexpected victory in Europe: "EU sanctions require unanimity to be implemented, so a Greek veto could block any further measures." And all thanks to the epic blunder by Brussels to allow a European nation to voice its opinion in a democratic fashion.

It wasn't just Zero Hedge who first suggested the Greek Russian pivot: here is RBS' Greg Gibbs who says that there are now "concerns Greek government may threaten to veto further Russian sanctions in exchange for debt relief fuels fear of conflict."

To be sure, Germany, whose theatrical opposition to money printing folded like Boehner's lawn chair last week, as it is now all too clear the preservation of German export dominance (and hence aversion to the DEM) and the sanctity of Deutsche Bank is what it is all about no matter the hyperinflationary concerns of the people, is quite furious that the grand ambitions of Europe's economic powerhouse - which as we reported moments ago has now officially entered deflation - have been crushed by tiny, depression-ridden Greece.

Here is Germany's economy minister Gabriel, who was on the tape earlier, casting fire and brimstone at Greece. From Reuters:

Greece should not burden the rest of Europe with its internal political debates, German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Thursday, adding that Greece's own inequalities were to blame for problems that it tried to blame on its multilateral lenders.

Gabriel told parliament Greece should stay in the euro but the new leftist leader Alexis Tsipras must respect the terms of its bailout. Greece could not blame the "troika" of multilateral lenders for its own unfair distribution of wealth, he said.

"All democratic people must respect the democratic decision of voters and a newly-elected government's right to decide its course - but the rest of Europe's citizens should not have to expect changes in Greek politics to burden them," he said.

Of course, as long as the changes in Greek politics allowed the rest of Europe's citizens to continue to benefit at Greek expense, nobody batted an eyelid. But change the equation and all hell breaks loose.

And the final confirmation that suddenly tiny Greece may have all the leverage in Europe is that moments ago Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that European sanctions on Russia are complicated by the "new Greek government."

The good news for Greece, of course, is that it now has all the optionality: it can use its veto power as a bargaining chip to unblock US foreign policy in Ukraine (because at the end of the day, Europe is merely losing as a result of the Russian sanctions) and demand a debt haircut in exchange for siding with John Kerry on further Russian "punishment." Or he may simply hold the line and hold off for a competing, better offer from Russia and the BRICs, whose leverage may be nominal now that crude is plummeting, but if and when the last shale junk bond investor blows up and the US shale renaissance is over sending crude soaring right back to $100, then watch as the oil exporters are back with a bang, and dictating geopolitical terms.

And whatever happens, please don't remind Brussels that point 40 of Syriza's 40 Point Manifesto, aka the "nuclear option", is "Closure of all foreign bases in Greece and withdrawal from NATO."

It is so bad that Business New Europe went so far as to ask if the New Greek Government is "Russia's Trojan horse inside the EU?"

In any event, the European balance of power has just shifted and in a way that nobody anticipated:

The biggest winners: if only for now: Greece and Russia (and, while it will never be admitted, all those Europeans who desperately need the Russian import market).

The biggest losers: all the unelected Eurocrats in Brussels who at this moment are scratching their heads how to bring the bad news that there is no longer unanimity on Russian sanctions to John Kerry, and all thanks to a country nobody thought would dare to speak up.

[Sophocles]

Is the New Greek Government a Trojan?

Tempest in a Teacup

by Nebojsa Malic, January 31, 2015


The Greek parliamentary election of January 25 was won by the "Coalition of the Radical Left," better known by the acronym SYRIZA (Synaspismós Rizospastikís Aristerás). It was not an altogether unexpected development, as both the mainstream Greek parties had lost the faith of the electorate by slavishly following the dictates of Brussels and Berlin to (mis)handle the Greek economic crisis. Yet speculation that Greece might leave the Eurozone, or even the EU, is at best premature. There might be more to the Greek situation than meets the eye.

That October Spirit

On the face of it, Syriza promises a clean break from the Berlin-dictated policy of "austerity" – in effect, laying waste to Greece to feed the European and American bankers. Its original 40-point manifesto is an eclectic mixture of leftist causes, from the nationalization of banks and utilities (#18 and #19, respectively), subsidized mortgages (#15) and nationalized health care (#14, 25, 26), to raising taxes (#3, 5, 6) and prohibiting "speculative financial derivatives" (#7). Syriza also wants to demilitarize the police (#29), open the borders (#30, 31) and withdraw from NATO (#37, 40). But it’s the very first item in the manifesto that gives the banksters of the West nightmares:

"Audit of the public debt and renegotiation of interest due, and suspension of payments until the economy has revived and growth and employment return."

While much of the media attention has been on Syriza’s leader and the new Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, the party’s focus on Greece’s finances will mean the man to watch would be the minister of finance in the new cabinet, Yanis Varoufakis. And in his words:

"The real deficit in Greece, it is a dignity deficit. It is because of this lack of dignity that we have accepted stupid measures and this has fueled a vicious cycle of indignity which itself maintains discontent, fear and resentment. All this is not good."

Varoufakis sees the solution in invoking the "spirit of October 28"; this is the date on which, in 1940, Greece laconically rejected the ultimatum by Mussolini’s Italy. The resulting Italian invasion turned into a fiasco, leading to Hitler’s invasion of Greece in April 1941.

The invocation of World War Two is not accidental: the fact that the Eurozone’s oppressive fiscal policy – more on that in a bit – is basically dictated by German bankers has caused comparisons with Nazi occupation for years, ever since the 2010 economic meltdown.

But will Syriza tell Berlin and Brussels "No," or is this just populist posturing?

Confusion in Athens

Twelve days before the vote, Syriza’s leader Alexis Tsipras wrote an open letter to the German public, published by the business journal Handelsblatt. In it, he explained that the fraudulent "bailouts" of the Greek state – in effect, of its Western creditors – were costing the German taxpayers money, and the Greeks their dignity. "What is even worse," Tsipras wrote, "in this manner, before long the Germans turn against the Greeks, the Greeks against the Germans, and unsurprisingly, the European Ideal suffers catastrophic losses." He concluded by saying that Germans had "nothing to fear from a SYRIZA victory."

Given Syriza’s proclaimed foreign policy goals – and the disastrous effects of EU’s "sanctions" (and Russian countermeasures) on the already moribund Greek economy, the new government was expected to oppose new anti-Russian measures in the EU. According to Reuters, however, Greece backed (!) extending the existing measures at a meeting on January 29. The aforementioned finance minister Varoufakis protested the news coverage, citing Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias that the Greeks were not even consulted, let alone consenting.

Reuters reported differently:

"We are not against every sanction," Kotzias said later. "We are in the mainstream, we are not the bad boys."

And while the German FM Steinmeier had "expressed frustration with the ambiguity of the Greek position" earlier, after meeting with Kotzias in private he "said he was less concerned".

Somebody’s lying here – but whether it’s Reuters, Kotzias, Varoufakis or the Germans, is almost impossible to ascertain.

Murky Business

There are other tidbits of information out there, pertaining to the new government in Athens. The departing cabinet left the offices without power, Internet service and even toilet soap, suggesting genuine animosity. However, Tsipras snubbed the Greek Orthodox Church in refusing to swear the oath of office before the clergy, as is custom.

Then there is the matter of Tsipras visiting Washington two years ago, discussing such issues as "the ultra-right Golden Dawn party and anti-Semitism… Greek-Turkish relations, the Cyprus issue and Greece-FYROM differences." Let’s recall that Golden Dawn (Chrysi Avgi) was the party giving EU and US officials major heartburn at the time, after winning 21 seats (Syriza had won 52) in the 2012 parliamentary election.

At the time, the Western media raised a storm over Golden Dawn’s "Nazi" nature. By September 2013, the party’s leadership was jailed on charges of criminal conspiracy, and the party was considered moribund. It is perhaps worth noting, then, that Golden Dawn won 17 seats in last weekend’s election – but nobody is worried about them any more. Why?

Last week, news came that the well-known "philanthropist" George Soros – currency speculator notorious for funding "civil society" and "democracy" groups acting as Trojan horses of the Atlantic Empire – was opening a "solidarity center" in Greece. To what end? Nobody knows for sure.

A Problem Called Euro

While there is no denying that past Greek governments have been terribly corrupt, their far greater sin was partnering up with Goldman Sachs to hide its bad debt – and letting the banksters profit from the arrangement, while the Greek taxpayers were saddled with the impossible bill.

You won’t hear any of it in the mainstream media, of course. They are peddling the bankster-promoted myth of the "lazy southerners" – not just the Greeks, but the Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese, in similar economic straits. By contrast, the "northerners" – Germans, Frenchmen, Brits, Balts and Scandinavians – are supposed to be the epitome of hard work and discipline.

However, one analysis, comparing the economic performance of Spain, Italy, Greece, France, and Germany for a decade before and after the implementation of the Euro, suggests that the currency standards are to blame, and the myth of "southern laziness" is pure bigotry. Others have argued likewise.

All of this raises the question whether the self-proclaimed "radical left" in Greece will follow its own manifesto and execute a "Grexit" from the Eurozone, or will it be unmasked as yet another Trojan horse of the Empire, seeking to fit into the increasingly impossible "mainstream". One suspects we won’t have to wait too long to find out.

Link: http://original.antiwar.com/malic/20...ment-a-trojan/

[Sophocles]

Putin prefers a bad peace
By Israel Shamir

In February, it is a long way to the spring, lamented Joseph Brodsky, the poet. Indeed, snow still falls heavily in Moscow and Kiev as well as in the rolling steppes that form Russian-Ukrainian borderlands, but there it is tinted with red. Soldiers are loth to fight in the winter, when life is difficult anyway in these latitudes, but fighting already flared up in war-torn Donbass, and the US prepares to escalate by supplying sophisticated weapons to Kiev. Tired by the siege and by intermittent shelling, the rebels disregarded snow and took the strategic Donetsk airport. This airport with its Stalin-built tunnels, a symbol of solid Soviet defence work, presented a huge challenge for underequipped militia. Its many-leveled underground facilities were built to sustain a nuclear attack; still, the rebels, after months of fighting, flushed the enemy out and took it.

In a bigger offensive, they trapped Kiev’s troops in Debaltsevo pocket, and Kiev already sued for a cease-fire. The rebels hope to dislodge the enemy from their lands altogether; as now they hold only about one third of Donbass; but Russia’s president still gropes for brakes. He prefers a bad peace to a good war. For him, the Ukraine is important, but not a sine qua non, the only problem in the world. This attitude he shares with the American leader. There is a big difference: Russia wants peaceful Ukraine, Americans prefer one at war.

Russia would prefer to see Ukraine united, federal, peaceful and prosperous. The alternative of splitting Donbass is not very tempting: Donbass is strongly connected to the rest of Ukraine, and it is not easy to sever its ties. The war already had sent millions of refugees from Donbass and from rump Ukraine to Russia and overloaded its systems. Putin can’t cut loose and forget about Donbass – his people would not allow him anyway. A cautious man, he does not want to go to an open-ended war. So he has to navigate towards some sort of peace.

I had a meeting with a well-informed and highly-placed Russian source who shared with me, for your benefit, some inner thoughts on condition of his anonymity. Though the West is certain that Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, actually the Russian president did everything he could to save the Ukraine from disintegration, said the source. That’s what Russia did in order to bring peace to Ukraine:

Russia supported the West-brokered agreement of February 21, 2014, but the US still pushed for the next day (February 22) coup, or “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine" , in Obama’s words.
After the coup, the South-East Ukraine did not submit to the new Kiev regime and seceded. Still, Moscow asked the Donbass rebels to refrain from carrying out their May referendum. (They disregarded Putin’s appeal).
Moscow recognised the results of sham May elections carried out by Kiev regime after the coup, and recognised Poroshenko as the president of the whole Ukraine – though there were no elections in the South East and opposition parties were banned from participating.
Moscow did not officially recognise the results of November elections in Donbass, to the chagrin of many Russian nationalists.

These steps were quite unpopular in Russian society, but Putin made them to promote a peaceful solution for Ukraine. Some warlike Donbass leaders were convinced to retire. In vain: Putin’s actions and intentions were disregarded by the US and EC. They encouraged the ‘war part‎y’ in Kiev. “They never found a fault with Kiev, whatever they do”, said the source.

Peace in Ukraine can be reached through federalisation, my source told me. That’s why two most important parameters of Minsk accords (between Kiev and Donetsk) were those we never hear about: constitutional and socio-economic reforms. Russia wants to secure territorial integrity of the Ukraine (minus Crimea) but it can be achieved only through federalisation of Ukraine with a degree of autonomy being given to its regions. Its west and east speak different languages, worship different heroes, have different aspirations. They could manage together, just, if the Ukraine were a federal state, like the US or Switzerland or India.

In Minsk, the sides agreed to establish a joint commission for constitutional reforms, but Kiev regime reneged on it. Instead, they created a small and secretive constitutional committee of the Rada (Parliament). This was condemned by the Venice Commission, a European advisory body on constitutional matters. Donetsk people wouldn’t accept it, either, and it is not what was agreed upon in Minsk.

As for integration, it was agreed in Minsk to reintegrate Donbass within Ukraine. This was disappointing for Donbass (they would prefer to join Russia), but they accepted it, - while Kiev laid siege to Donbass, cut off its banks, ceased buying Donbass coal, stopped to pay pensions. Kiev troops daily shell Donetsk, a city of a million inhabitants (in peaceful times!). Instead of amnesty for rebels, as agreed in Minsk, there are more government troops pouring eastwards.

The Russians did not give up on Minsk accords. The Minsk agreements could bring peace, but they have to be implemented. Perhaps president Poroshenko of Kiev would like to, but Kiev war party with its western support will unseat Poroshenko if he goes too far. Paradoxically, the only way to force him to peace is war, - though Russia would prefer the West to put pressure on its clients in Kiev. The rebels and their Russian supporters used warfare to force him to sign Minsk accords: their offensive on Mariupol on the Black Sea was hugely successful, and Poroshenko preferred to go to Minsk in order to keep Mariupol. Since then, Kiev and Donetsk had a few cease-fires, they exchanged POWs, but Kiev refuses to implement constitutional and socio-economic demands of Minsk accord.

It does not make sense to cease fire, if Kiev uses it to regroup and attack again. Cease fire should lead to a constitutional reform, said my source, a reform negotiated in an open and transparent dialogue of the regions and Kiev. Without a reform, Donbass (or Novorussia) will go to war. So the Debaltsevo operation can be considered as a way to force Poroshenko to sue for peace.

Russia does not intend to take part in the war, or in peace negotiations, said the source. The Russians are adamant to stay out, while the Americans are equally adamant to present Russia as a side to conflict.

Meanwhile, the Russian-American relations were moved forty years back to Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974 by the Ukraine Freedom [Support Act of 2014]. The US Secretary of State John Kerry considered this act an unfortunate development, but a temporary one. The Russians are not that optimistic: for them, the Act codified anti-Russian sanctions. The US tries to turn other states against Russia, with some success. In one sweep the German Kanzlerin Angela Merkel eliminated all organisations, structures and ties built between Germany and Russia for many years. Every visit of Joe Biden causes a conflagration.

The Russians are upset with the story of the Malaysian Boeing. In every high-level encounter with the Americans, they remind of the hysterical accusations and claims that the liner was downed by the rebels using Russian missiles. Six months passed since the tragedy; still the Americans did not present a single proof of Russian and/or rebel involvement. They did not present photos of their satellites, nor records of their AWACS aircraft hovering over Eastern Europe. My source told me that the American high-ranking officials do not insist anymore that Russians/rebels are involved, but they stubbornly refuse to apologise for their previous baseless accusations. They never say they are sorry.

Still the Americans want to play the ball. They insist that they do not seek Russian ‘surrender’, that they find the confrontation costly and unwelcome, while the US needs Russian support for dealing with Iranian nuclear programme, with removal of Syrian chemical weapons, with Palestinian problem. The Russians retort they have heard it all during the Libyan affair and aren’t impressed.

Differences of opinion between Russia and the US are big in practically every area. There is one common feature: from Syria to Donbass, Russians endorse peace, Americans push for war. Now the Russians invited some opposition figures and the government representatives from Syria for talks in Moscow. They came, talked, went away and will come again. They could probably settle but the US representatives say that they will never reconcile to Bashar Assad presidency and will fight to the last Syrian for his dismissal. It is not that Americans are bloodthirsty; war makes sense for them: every war on the globe supports the US dollar and invigorates Dow Jones, as capital seeks safe haven and finds it in the US.

They do not think about fate of Syrians who flee to Jordan - or of Ukrainians who escape to Russia in ever increasing numbers. What a shame for two wonderful countries! Syria was peaceful and prosperous, the diamond of the Middle East until ruined by the US-supported islamists; the Ukraine was the wealthiest part of the USSR, until being ruined by the US-supported far-right and oligarchs. Joseph Brodsky bitterly predicted in 1994, as the Ukraine declared its independence from Russia, that the shifty Ukrainians will still evoke Russian poetry in their mortal hour. This prophesy is about to be fulfilled.

Link: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.no/

[Sophocles]

Deputy Oleg Tsarov was threatened by Igor Kolomoisky last year before his house was burned down. I guess it`s understandable why he then withdrew his candidacy last April.

The conversation (in russian):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XILeF78gRew

KIEV, May 21. /ITAR-TASS/. Unidentified assailants attacked and burnt down the house of Oleh Tsariov, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and former presidential candidate, overnight on Wednesday in the eastern city of Dnipropetrovsk.

“My house in Dnipropetrovsk was burnt down at night,” Tsariov wrote on his Facebook page. “Two buses with armed people arrived at 2.00 am and showered the house with Molotov cocktails. The assailants acted confidently. They were filming the arson, probably to report later on their job."

Link: http://itar-tass.com/en/world/732440

[Sophocles]

According to Edward Basorin in the stab (or something) of the Donetsk Republic:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WOFO9ep4mik

The Donetsk People`s Republic leadership has evidences of preparations for the provocation against the peaceful cilvilians in Debaltsevo planned on the eve of Munich Security Conference on 6-8 feruary, being conducted by the Ukrainian military command.

In order to accomplish this, he said, a bus evacuating people from Debaltsevo area is planned to be destroyed with artillery fire of one of the Ukranian Armed Forces units in the next few days.

The information was recieved as a result of the interrogation of the senior lieutenant Marchenko Alexandr Sergeyevich who was serving in the military unit number 0676, 25th territorial defense battalion «Kievskaya Rus», who surrendered to the DPR army on february 2nd in the Redkodub settlement area.

Ukrainian leadership plans to spread the fact of the shelling and deaths of civilians in Ukrainian and international mass media, to be used on Munich Security Conference in purpose of discrediting the Donetsk People`s Republic with following recognition of it as a terrorist organization by the world community.

[Sophocles]

Friday, February 6, 2015

Ukraine SITREP: *Extremely* dangerous situation in Debaltsevo

The Novorussian and the junta have agreed to a cease-fire to allow the civilian population to leave Debaltsevo. In theory, each civilian will get to chose whether he/she wants to be evacuated to Novorussia or to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine. The convoy of refugees will be escorted by senior OSCE officials. Both sides to the conflict have pledged not to open fire during the time needed for this operation. Now consider this:

1) The only thing protecting the junta forces are, precisely, these civilians. If these civilians leave, then Debaltsevo will turn into Saur Mogila. Until now, the Novorussians have advanced rather slowly precisely because they could not use the full power of their artillery to soften up the well dug-in junta forces. But thanks to the Voentorg, the Novorussians now have plenty of firepower now and if they decide to really open up upon the junta forces the latter will suffer the same devastating consequences as their (now dead) colleagues in Saur Mogila. Everybody understands that.

2) Tonight the junta has used white phosphorus again, and in the recent days they have used both ballistic missiles and cluster munitions. Why this sudden concern with the Debaltsevo civilians (whom the Nazis consider as "bugs" anyway)? Does anybody really believe that the Nazi freaks in Kiev care for Novorussian civilians?!

3) Kerry, Hollande and Merkel were in Kiev today. The latter two will be in Moscow tomorrow. In Germany, the Munich Security Conference is meeting. NATO is still claiming that "hundreds and hundreds" of Russian Federation soldiers are operating in Novorussia. While some US officials speak of sending "lethal aid" to the junta, others seem to oppose it.

What does that all tell you?

Me - it tells me that this is the PERFECT opportunity for the kind of false flag massacres NATO and the US are so good at. That is how the "Empire of Kindness" justified bombing the Bosnian Serbs, that is how the "Empire of Kindness" justified bombing Kosovo and that is how the "Empire of Kindness" justified bombing Libya.

Tomorrow, such an attack will be very easy to organize. Just send a group of men to post a Claymore mine anywhere along the convoy's route, plant a 152mm shell with a remote under the road where the bus will collect the refugees, pay some patsy to hide in the ditch with an RPG, or use a regular Grad strike at any time - and, voilà, you will have exactly the kind of atrocity which was used to justify all the previous wars of the "Empire of Kindness".

Except that this time around, the goal will not be to bomb or invade Novorussia (that is something the US/NATO simply cannot do), but to create the kind if hysteria which might make it possible to save the junta forces in the Debaltsevo cauldron. That, at least, could be the plan. Also, if a massacre happens at the evacuation of refugees, then this will "prove" that the Novorussians don't care about civilians and create a "Sarajavo-like" situation in which the surrounded force gets to shoot as much as it wants while the surrounding force is crucified by the imperial propaganda for every shell fired.

I sure hope that I am wrong, but I won't breathe normally again until tomorrow evening because if no false flag happens tomorrow this will be a real miracle.

The Saker

Link: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.no/

[Roberta]

As far as Herve's post above (the South stream cancelled project) is concerned: It is a perfect analysis of a failed politics and I do appreciate it a lot!