Vladimir Putin has criticized Washington’s unilateral actions on the international arena, saying that whatever it touches seems to be turning into Libya or Iraq.

Below are the top 10 quotes from the Russian President’s speech at the Seliger youth forum.

Unilateral decisions made outside the United Nations are usually doomed to failure, Putin said Friday, while speaking at the “Seliger-2014” annual youth forum.

Do you remember the joke: ‘Whatever Russians make, they always end up with a Kalashnikov?’ I get an impression that whatever Americans touch they always end up with Libya or Iraq,” Putin told the participants of the 10th forum held on Lake Seliger in Tver region, some 370 km north of Moscow.

When decisions are made unilaterally, they always turn out to be short lived. And the other way round: it’s difficult to reach consensus at the UN because often opposite opinions and positions collide. But that is the only way to achieve long-term decisions,” he said.

When a decision is balanced and supported by key members of the international community, Putin said, everyone starts working in order fulfill it perfectly.

‘UN won’t be needed if it serves only US and its allies’

Putin totally disagreed that the UN is inefficient. But the organization needs to be reformed and its instruments should be used efficiently.

The reform should become a result of a consensus reached by the overwhelming majority of the members of the organization, he said.

It is also necessary to preserve the fundamental grounds of the UN’s efficiency. In particular, only the Security Council should have the power to make decision on sanctions and the use of military force, Putin said. And these decisions must be obligatory for everyone. Such mechanisms should not be eroded. “Otherwise the UN will turn into the League of Nations,” the Russian President said.

The organization will lose its purpose if it is only an “instrument to serve foreign policy interests of only one country – in this case the US and its allies,” Putin. “Then it is not needed.”

Putin compared the shelling of east Ukrainian towns and cities by Kiev army to actions by the Nazi forces during the World War Two.

Sad as it might seem, this reminds me of the events of World War II, when the German Nazi troops surrounded our cities, like Leningrad, and directly shelled those cities and their residents,” Putin said.

Why they (Kiev) call this a military-humanitarian operation?” he said, adding that the conflicting sides should get to a negotiating table.

Ukrainians who did not support the coup mounted by “our western partners” with the backing of radical nationalists, are being suppressed by the military force, Putin said speaking about the situation in the neighboring state.

We’re no fools. We saw symbolic cookies handed out on [by Victoria Nuland] Maidan, information support, political support. What that means? A full involvement of the US and European nations into the process of the power change: a violent unconstitutional power change.”

And the part of the country that disagreed with that is being suppressed with the use of jets, artillery, multiple launch systems and tanks,” Putin said. “If these are today’s European values – I’m gravely disappointed.”

Putin said that Russia did not “annex” Crimea, as the peninsula’s reunion with Russia is often described by foreign media and politicians.

We didn’t not annex it, we didn’t take it away. We gave people an opportunity to have their say and make a decision, which we took with respect. We protected them, I believe.”

We had to protect our compatriots, who live there (in Crimea). When we look at events in Donbass, Lugansk, Odessa, it becomes clear to us what would have happened to Crimea if we had not taken measures to provide free expression of will to people.”

‘Russia to beef up nuclear deterrence potential’

Russia is going to boost its military forces and nuclear deterrence potential, Putin told the youth forum.

Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear states. It’s not words, it is the reality,” he said. “We are strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces, we are strengthening our armed forces…We are beefing up our potential and will continue doing so.”

This is being done “not to threaten anyone, “but to feel secure,” he added.

‘Russia is not going to get involved in large-scale conflicts’

Russia will not get engaged in any large conflicts, but will defend itself in case of aggression, Putin warned.

Russia is far from getting involved any large-scale conflicts. We don’t want that and we are not going to do it. And, naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia,” Putin said.

Our partners – whatever condition their countries are in and whatever foreign policy concept they adhere to – should understand that it’s better not to mess with us,” Putin said. “Thank God, I believe it doesn’t occur to anyone to unleash a large-scale conflict with Russia.”

‘Russia will seek acceptable compromises on Arctic’

Russia admits that other states have their interests in the Arctic – the region that is thought to contain vast reserves of oil and gas.

Both Russia and Canada, who along with the US, Norway and Denmark constitute the five states with Polar claims, have made legal attempts to secure their rights to large swathes of the Arctic, which is thought to contain 15 percent of the oil reserves and 30 percent of all natural gas in the world.

We will take the interests of these states into consideration and seek acceptable compromises,” Putin said, adding that Russia would “naturally” also defend its own interests.

The five Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russia and the US – have for several years now been in a bitter dispute over how to divide up this resource-rich ‘pie’.

‘Crimea recognition will be long and tedious’

It will take a long while for Crimea to be internationally recognized as part of Russia, Putin believes.

He said he finds it “strange” and referred to an example with the recognition of Kosovo independence where a political will and desire were enough to make such a decision “easily.

He also recalled that in case with Kosovo, no referendum was held: the decision on independence was made by the parliament of the Serbian breakaway republic. In the situation with Crimea, there was both a decision by the parliament and a referendum. In Putin’s view, the latter was a more democratic way for a nation’s self-determination.

“Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In all this vastness there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.” Carl Sagan

Washington poured five billion dollars into Ukraine with the aim of eventually instigating a coup on Russia’s doorstep [1]. When the former administration turned to Moscow rather than Washington and Europe for a financial package of assistance, Washington cashed in on its investment and facilitated the ousting of a democratically elected government.

To the delight of Monsanto, Chevron and others, Ukraine is now open for business and the structural plunder of its economy, which involves any IMF loans going straight into the hands of its very wealthy creditors [2,3]. It is called being ‘open for business’. It is called setting people free. It is ‘freedom and democracy’, the Wall Street version.

Washington and NATO are providing personnel, mercenary forces and advice to help the Ukraine government bomb, kill, maim and drive out those who are demanding autonomy from the US puppet regime in Kiev [4]. Washington and its proxy forces in Ukraine are ‘ethnically cleansing’ the mainly Russian speaking separatists in the east, with up to one million having fled across the border into Russia [5].

Yet it is Washington that accused Moscow of invading Ukraine, based on flimsy or no evidence at all. Washington has accused Moscow of having a hand in the downing of a commercially airliner based on no evidence at all. As a result of this invisible Russian ‘aggression’, Washington has slapped sanctions on Moscow, which are hurting Europe more they are hurting the US [6]. But that’s the point: to de-link Europe’s economy from Russia in terms of trade and energy and weaken Europe to ensure it remains dependent on Washington.

The mainstream corporate media in the West parrots the accusations against Moscow as fact, despite Washington having cooked up evidence or invented baseless pretexts. The western corporate media’s role is to cheer-lead official policies and wars.

The US has around 800 military bases in over 100 countries [7]. Russia does not.

The US has military personnel in almost 150 countries [8]. Russia does not.

US spending on its military dwarfs what the rest of the world spends together. It outspends China by a ratio of 6:1 [9].

Just who is the aggressor?

By the 1980s, according to former CIA ‘asset’ John Stockwell, Washington’s wars, death squads and covert operations were responsible for six million deaths in the ‘developing’ world [10]. An updated figure by writer Annie Day suggests that figure is closer to ten million [11].

Washington has moved into Eastern Europe and continues to install missile systems aimed at Russia. It has also surrounded Iraq with military bases. It is destabilising Pakistan and countries across Africa to weaken Chinese trade and investment links and influence. It intends to militarily ‘pivot’ towards Asia to encircle China and give it the type of ‘attention’ Russia is currently receiving.

William Blum has presented a long list of Washington’s crimes across the planet since 1945 in terms of its numerous bombings of countries, assassinations of elected leaders and destabilisations [12]. No other country can come close to matching in scale such aggression and criminality. Whether it is CIA-instigated coups in Latin America or aiding or carrying out the mass slaughter of civilians in Indonesia or South East Asia, under the smokescreen of exporting ‘freedom and democracy’, the US has deemed it necessary to ignore international laws and carry out atrocities to further its geo-political interests across the globe.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a recipe for continued barbarity [13]. It discusses taking out Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and other countries. The outcome has been chaos and slaughter for the benefit of Wall Street and the City of London. The ultimate goal is to prevent any rival emerging to challenge Washington’s global hegemony and to secure dominance over the entire planet.

Two countries present a challenge in this respect: Russia and China. Both are in the process of being dealt with. Russia is currently the top priority: it is preventing ‘progress’ in Syria, Iran and Central Asia. At this time, all paths to Moscow are through Ukraine.

A former top CIA official recently stated that if the economic sanctions do not hurt Russian oligarchs enough to make them oust Putin then a bullet to the head would do the job [14]. And that is the whole point of Washington’s game plan. To slap illegitimate sanctions on Moscow, to squeeze Russia’s rich till the pips squeak and they oust Putin and to destabilise Russia via Ukraine and install a leader who will acquiesce to the US. The US can then proceed unchallenged to loot Russia again, as it did in the nineties. But this time the plan is to balkanise Russia to ensure it remains permanently crippled.

Washington has no morality.

In a recent speech by Putin, he stated that those forces who are lining up against Russia should remember that Russia is a nuclear power [15]. Washington believes it can win a nuclear conflict with Russia. It no longer regards nuclear weapons as a last resort but part of a convention theatre of war and is willing to use them for pre-emptive strikes [16].

Washington is accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty without a shred of credible evidence, while it sends military and intelligence assistance to Kiev and has its military, mercenary and intelligence personnel inside Ukraine. It is putting troops in Poland and is tabling a ‘Russian anti-aggression’ act that will portray Russia as an aggressor in order to give Ukraine de facto membership of NATO and thus full military support, advice and assistance [17]. If Russia does decide to intervene to protect ethnic Russians, NATO/the US and Moscow could come face to face on the battlefield. The strength of Russia’s conventional forces in its own back yard would surely place NATO on the back foot. Staring defeat in the face, the US could well resort to the nuclear option.

Washington’s aggression amounts to a gamble with all our lives. There would be no winner, only nuclear Armageddon for the entire planet.

Washington is pressing ahead regardless and with a renewed sense of urgency as Russia begins to try to take the legs from under the US by trading oil and gas and goods in roubles and other currencies [18]. Once the dollar loses its value because no one needs it to buy oil anymore, the petrodollar system is dead and the US economy will tank.

Gaddafi and Saddam were taken care of partly because their plans or actions would or were serving to undermine the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. Iran is a key target because of this too. Whenever a country threatens the dollar, the US does not idly stand by. Both China and Russia are abandoning the dollar. Washington’s sense of urgency to deal with both is palpable.

Unfortunately, most members of the western public believe the lies being fed to them by Washington. This results from the corporate media amounting to little more than an extension of Washington’s propaganda arm. The PNAC, under the pretext of a ‘war on terror’, is partly built on gullible, easily led public opinion, which is (often) fanned by the emotive outburst from politicians and the media about ‘saving’ this or that group of people from some tyrant or the simplistic good versus evil  narrative about ‘terror’. We have a Pavlov’s dog public and media, which respond on cue to the moralistic bleatings of condescending criminals that masquerade as respectable politicians and who rely on the public’s ignorance to fuel their barbarity in the name of ‘protecting civilians’ from an impending bloodbath, while going on to cause numerous bloodbaths under the lie of ‘defeating terror’ or tyranny.

Why for one moment would ordinary people believe that the Anglo-US Establishment cares about ordinary people in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria or elsewhere and go in to ‘save them’ when it clearly regards its own people with suspicion and contempt.

The post-war Keynesian consensus has been gradually dismantled, leading to the offshoring of millions of jobs and leaving millions in debt, in poverty, thrown onto the scrapheap or used as fodder to fight wars for the rich under the banner of ‘protecting freedoms’, while those very freedoms at home are stripped away by illegal mass surveillance and the curtailment of freedoms and rights.

Yet the lies persist and are too often believed.

Former US Ambassador Ukraine John Herbst has spoken about the merits of the Kiev coup and the installation of an illegitimate government in Ukraine. Earlier this year during an interview for RT, he called the removal of Ukraine’s democratically elected government as enhancing democracy [19]. Herbst displayed all of the arrogance associated with the ideology of US ‘exceptionalism’ and Washington having the right to act in any way as and when it deems fit (like instigating coups under the guise of democratic uprisings no doubt). Like Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Nuland and others, he also displayed complete contempt for the public by spouting falsehoods and misleading claims about events taking place in Ukraine.

Herbst, Nuland and their ilk would do well to contemplate their country’s post-1945 record of war mongering and destabilisations of democratic governments, which has led to millions of deaths, its global surveillance network exposed by Edward Snowdon that illegally spies on individuals and governments alike and its ongoing plundering of resources and countries supported by militarism, ‘free trade’ or the outright manipulation of markets.

If Herbst specialises in lies and doublespeak, the same could not be said of another former ambassador. The former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray has called the UK a rogue state and a danger to the world.

He recently told a meeting at St Andrews University in Scotland that the British Government is deeply immoral and doesn’t care how many people its kills abroad if it advances it aims [20 - a quick search on ‘Google News’ for this item was conspicuous by its absence among the UK media)]. Moreover, he said the UK was a state that is prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy. He said that the actions he witnessed as a senior diplomat had changed his world view and it was now “impossible to be proud of the United Kingdom.”

He added that Libya is now a disaster and 15,000 people where killed when NATO bombed Sirte, something the BBC never told the public.

Murray told his audience what many already know or suspect but what many, many more remain ignorant of: “I’ve seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign interventions are almost always about resources. It is every bit as corrupt as others have indicated. It is not an academic construct, the system stinks.”

Murray was a British diplomat for 20 years. But after only six months, he said that in the country where he was Ambassador, the British and the US were shipping people in order for them to be tortured and some of them were tortured to death.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Murray said that he knew for certain that key British officials were fully aware that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. He said that invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie.

It was a lie just like the ongoing demonisation of Putin and Russia is based on a series of lies. The BBC lied about Libya by not telling people the truth about NATO’s slaughter (or the real reasons Gaddafi was targeted). Furthermore, politicians, officials and the corporate media do their utmost to conceal from the public what Murray revealed: that the British Government (and US) is deeply immoral, doesn’t care how many people its kills abroad if it advances it aims and is a state that is prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy.

Yes, prepared to sacrifice mainly working class young men’s lives to go to war for the wealthy. The working class whose jobs were sold to the lowest bidder abroad three decades back on the back of Margaret Thatcher’s treachery, again for the benefit of the wealthy. Who in their right mind would sign up to fight for Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Monsanto, BP, Barclays and the like. Not many. However, economic conscription is always guaranteed to swell the fighting ranks. If that isn’t possible, just roll out the flag and patriotic sentiment will neatly serve to conceal the actual reality from the public.

Catastrophic events that send the world into turmoil happen on ‘just another day’. Pearl Harbour, 9/11 or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand took place while millions of ordinary folk across the world were just going about their everyday business on ‘just another day’. An Israeli missile attack on a neighbourhood in Gaza or a drone attack on unsuspecting civilians in Afghanistan: death, destruction or war comes like a bolt from the blue as people shop at the local market or take their kids to school on ‘just another day’.

It will be ‘just another day’ when the next nuclear bomb is exploded in anger, an ordinary day when people are just going about their daily business. By then it might be too late to do anything, too late to act to try to prevent a rapidly unfolding global catastrophe on a scale never before witnessed by humans. Yet most of humanity appears too arrogant, apathetic, wrapped up in a world of gadgets, technology, shopping malls, millionaire sports players and big-time sports events to think that such a thing could be imminent? Are they so preoccupied with the machinations of their own lives in cotton-wool cocooned societies to think that what is happening in Ukraine or Syria or Iraq is (after endless news reports) just too boring to follow or that it doesn’t really concern them or it is ‘not my problem’? Do they think they are untouchable, that only death, war and violence happens in faraway places Syria or Iran?

Could any of us even contemplate that on some not-too-distant day a series of European cities could be laid waste within a matter of minutes? Could it soon be the case that the mention of Kiev, Moscow, Brussels, St Petersburg or London conjures up similar thoughts of nuclear wasted cities as has for decades the mention of the words Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It isn’t worth thinking about.

But it is. That is where we could end up very shortly if Washington continues with its madness. The USSR backed down over stationing missiles in Cuba because it knew the US would not; it was on Washington’s doorstep. This time, it will be Russia which will not back down because of what is happening on its doorstep. Its very existence as a state is at stake.

However, would the US be prepared to back down? Faced with possible defeat by conventional Russian forces if the worst case scenario comes to pass, would it use the nuclear option to avoid backing down and attempt to eradicate Russia as a potential rival and risk destroying humanity in the process?

Given its track record of reckless disregard for human life across the globe since 1945, what do you think?

Notes

1]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm

2]http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-the-corporate-annexation-for-cargill-chevron-monsanto-its-a-gold-mine-of-profits/5375170

3]http://rt.com/op-edge/170960-economy-imf-ukraine-oligarchs/

4]http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_06/US-NATO-CIA-supporting-nazis-in-Ukraine-project-2569/

5]http://news.yahoo.com/un-nearly-million-ukrainians-fled-fighting-east-174928803.html

6]http://rt.com/op-edge/sanctions-russia-west-ukraine-513/

7]http://www.alternet.org/story/141071/spending_$102_billion_a_year_on_800_worldwide_military_bases_is_bankrupting_the_country

8]http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/

9]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.html

10]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

11]http://revcom.us/a/291/zero-dark-thirty-en.html

12]http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

13]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

14]http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/how_to_solve_the_putin_problem.html

15]http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/don-t-mess-with-nuclear-russia-warns-putin/article1-1258033.aspx

16]http://rt.com/op-edge/dangerous-crossroads-nuclear-war-770/

17]http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russian-aggression-prevention-act-rapa-a-direct-path-to-nuclear-war-with-russia/5397171

18]http://rt.com/business/164752-russiia-de-dollarize-yuan-china/

19]http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter280214.htm

20]http://en.ria.ru/world/20140828/192428303/Former-British-Ambassador-to-Uzbekistan-Says-UK-Rogue-State.html

International attention has been diverted away from this year’s G20 meetings in Australia by the declaration from the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, at their meeting in Fortaleza Brazil this July, that they would launch a new “BRICS bank.”

Created by the U.S. Treasury in the wake of the Asian financial crisis at the end of the 1990s, the G20 was designed to get the major “emerging market” states to take responsibility alongside the G7 for the “new international financial architecture.” This was seen as providing legitimacy for the continuing central role of the U.S. in superintending a greatly expanded but increasingly volatile global capitalism.

This especially included what the U.S. Treasury called “failure containment” in the face of recurring financial crises. With this concern uppermost in mind, the G20 heads of state were summoned to Washington DC, in November 2008 to prevent the first global capitalist crisis of the 21st century from turning into a repeat of the 1930s breakdown of international capitalism. In this respect, the “commitment to an open global economy” in the final communiqué from the 2008 Washington Summit was especially significant:

“We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward … we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services.”

This commitment has been reinforced at every annual G20 meeting since, including the preparatory ones for Brisbane this November. When the finance ministers and central bank governors at their February 2014 meeting in Sydney promised “to remove constraints to private investment,” this met the central U.S. condition for sustaining global capitalism.

Still in Control

This is not to say that the U.S. has ceded much operational control to the G20, any more than it ever did to the G7. The key policy decisions are made in Washington DC where the IMF and World Bank are headquartered, but even more decisively where the Treasury and Federal Reserve are located. The coordinated G20 fiscal stimulus in 2009 was significant, but mainly because it made it easier for the U.S. Congress to accept the Treasury’s initial plan for massive deficit spending to prevent a spiral into another great depression.

After Congress turned its face sharply against this in 2010, the centerpiece of policy shifted to the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” monetary policy, and has remained there ever since. The impact of this was felt as much internationally as domestically, as the Fed effectively acted as the world’s central bank through its role in setting benchmark interest rates and its streaming of dollars to foreign as well as U.S. banks.

There were widespread expectations that – with the great financial crisis having had its origins in the U.S., let alone the subsequent unorthodox “easy money” policy – the “exorbitant privilege” of the dollar in the financial networks linking the BRICS into global production and trade would be undermined. Brazil, Russia, India and China, who were not so naïve as to imagine the G20 would be the venue for overseeing the demise of the dollar, also held their own first summit meeting at a meeting in Yekaterinburg in 2008.

Joined by South Africa in 2010, they soon began hatching plans for their own international bank, autonomous from the U.S. and the Washington-based financial institutions. These plans were reinforced when the U.S. Congress refused to endorse the larger vote for the BRICS in the IMF and World Bank, agreed at G20 meetings.

For Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-prize winning ex-chief economist of the World Bank, the announcement of the new BRICS bank at Forteleza signalled a clear challenge to the U.S.-led world order, reflecting “a fundamental change in global economic and political power.” Fidel Castro associated it with his own country’s resistance to “the most powerful empire ever to exist,” and expressed his confidence that the BRICS leaders promotion of “cooperation and solidarity with the peoples … in the achievement of sustainable development, and the eradication of poverty,” would culminate in “one of the greatest feats of human history.”

Wall Street, City of London

Yet, the main reason for the continuing central role of the dollar has very little to do with the institutional structure of the IMF, or the greater size of its capitalization relative to what the BRICS bank will muster. It primarily reflects the absence – even in Shanghai, where the new bank will be headquartered – of anything like the depth and range of the financial markets centred on Wall Street and its satellite in the City of London. And it is the ways in which these markets are, in turn, so deeply intertwined with the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve that explains the latter’s dominant role in global economic management.

What is more, the room for manoeuvre the BRICS bank would be allowed from the IMF is distinctly limited. Indeed, to obtain the full benefit of borrowing under the BRICS bank’s “contingent reserve arrangement” would still be contingent on a country having an “on-track arrangement” with the IMF. Indeed, this looks very much like the 2000 “Chiang Mai Initiative” arrangement for currency swaps among China, Japan, South Korea and ASEAN countries after the 1997-98 financial crisis, which was little used and proved largely symbolic.

The alacrity with which the World Bank has welcomed the BRICS bank also relates to the fact that its goals as a development bank look not very different from the resource-depleting, export-oriented economic strategies that have heretofore governed the emerging markets participation in capitalist globalization. Along the lines of Brazil’s BNDES development bank, it might promote the BRICS own multinational corporations, but this stands in sharp contrast with the cooperative socialist principles of the now defunct Latin American Bank of the South that revolutionary governments in Venezuela and Bolivia initially had in mind.

At Fortaleza, a “BRICS from below” meeting of civil society groups and independent unions stressed the extent to which the dominant classes and governments of each of the BRICS members were themselves committed to neoliberal policies, often brutally administered in their own countries.

They were in this respect at one with the recent L20 trade union statement for the Australian G20 meetings, which in criticising “austerity policies and structural ‘reforms’ that reduce wages and workers protection” saw the BRICS as no model for an alternative. Indeed, it noted that “if in emerging Asian economies income distribution had not worsened over the past 20 years, the region’s rapid growth would have lifted an extra 240 million people out of poverty.”

For all the fanfare that attended the announcement of the BRICS Bank at the Fortaleza summit, it will in fact do little to shift the balance and, even more important, the substance of global financial power. There is an old lesson here, which also certainly applies to what will be heard about the “Brisbane Action Plan” this Autumn: real change begins at home. •

Leo Panitch is editor of the Socialist Register and distinguished research professor at York University, Canada. He is co-author, with Sam Gindin, of The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire (Verso). This article first published on The Guardian website.

The Observable Facts Were Ignored …

Bill Binney is the NSA’s former senior technical director, 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, one of the world’s top crypto-mathematicians, who managed thousands of employees at the agency.

Binney was the original NSA whistleblower, and one of two NSA veterans whose example inspired Edward Snowden.

Binney recently signed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s petition, stating:

There is clearly evidence that needs to be considered in a review of what happened in 9/11. We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened.

Two days ago, Binney said in an interview that speaking with physicists and controlled demolition experts convinced him that the investigations to date have – at best - been incompetent, and failed to address the observable facts:

-

Binney said:

They felt they had to have something drastic happen so they could get a lot more money and build up an empire and do the things they wanted to do.

Washington’s Blog asked Binney what he meant by that statement, and he explained:

I had several reasons for saying that. First, Gen Minihan when he was Dirnsa [Director of the National Intelligence Agency] was internally in NSA quoted to say that we will have to have a drastic event occur before we could change the way we were doing things. Then Hayden took over as Dirnsa.

And, on 27 February 2001 he or someone from NSA approached the CEO of Quest requesting Quests’ subscriber data – meaning billing data. This is in court records. [Background here, here and here.]

This all smacked of waiting for something to happen so they could leverage it to do what they really wanted to do – which was evidenced by the request to Quest.

Also, I would add that the 9/11 Commission left out data that Tom Drake passed to them showing vital data prior to 11 Sep giving warning of an attack. This should also not be acceptable. [Background.]

Binney joins many high-level officials – including military leaders, intelligence officials and 9/11 commissioners – who are dissatisfied with the 9/11 investigations to date.

For background on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, watch this C-Span interview and this documentary.

Postscript:  Government officials agree that 9/11 was state-sponsored terrorism … they just disagree on which state was responsible.

Notable for its absence in the corporate media is any mention of the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukrainian territory, killing all 298 people on board.

At that time, and without any evidence, all U.S. and NATO officials immediately blamed Russia and the Ukrainian rebels in eastern Ukraine for shooting down the Boeing 777. They used this charge to whip the European Union into imposing sanctions on the Russian economy.

On Aug. 11, the Dutch Safety Board announced that a preliminary report would be published in a week with the first factual finding of the ongoing investigation into the flight that departed from Amsterdam and crashed in Ukraine. The Netherlands was given custody of the flight data recorder, or black box recordings, from the crash.

As of Aug. 25, the Dutch government has refused to release the recordings. (RIA Novosti, Aug. 25) This, of course, immediately raises suspicions that the Kiev junta forces were responsible for the crash.

Questions had already been raised of why the Kiev forces would have placed numerous BUK anti-aircraft batteries in the area when the rebels have no planes, why the Malaysian flight was diverted hundreds of miles by Kiev ground control over the battle zone, and why Kiev air traffic control data and radar data of the flight have still not been made ­public.

Did the Ukrainian military shoot down the passenger plane simply to create a provocation that could be turned against the rebels in east Ukraine and Russia?

Demands for an independent inquiry into the crash are growing. One petition raises the danger of the U.S. expansion of NATO and military encirclement of Russia and posed the possibility that Flight MH17’s crash resulted from an attempt to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose aircraft was returning from South America the same day.

The media’s silence now and the absence of U.S. officials providing any concrete evidence in over a month from their own spy satellites or radar add fuel to the growing questions and deep suspicions of the Kiev coup regime’s role in the crash and the growing danger of U.S./NATO military expansion.

The creation of the Truthy database by Indiana University researchers has drawn sharp criticism from free-speech advocates and others concerned over government censorship of political expression.

According to the award abstract accompanying the funding provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Truthy project aims to demonstrate “why some ideas cause viral explosions while others are quickly forgotten.” In order to answer this and other questions, the resulting database will actively “[collect] and [analyze] massive streams of public microblogging data.”

Once the database is up and running, anyone can use its “service” to monitor “trends, bursts, and suspicious memes.” Several of the researchers suggested that the public will be able to discover the use of “shady machinery” by election campaigners who push faulty information to social media users to manipulate them politically.

As a seeming afterthought, the abstract concludes that this open-source project “could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate.”

This last statement provoked widespread criticism as troubling and even Orwellian. Right-wing media outlets Fox News and the Washington Timesattacked the reference to “hate speech,” in which they specialize, without highlighting the reference to “subversive propaganda,” a term of abuse usually reserved for left-wing criticism of American government and society.

While the leaders of this government-funded operation have sought to fend off attacks with the explanation that this database is merely designed to study the diffusion of information on social media networks, there is no mistaking the repressive overtones of the project.

Filippo Menczer, the project’s principal investigator and a professor at Indiana University, has responded to allegations by issuing a statement through the Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research, explaining that Truthy is not “a political watchdog, a government probe of social media,” or “an attempt to suppress free speech.” He states that Truthy is incapable of determining whether a particular scrap of data constitutes “misinformation,” and reiterates the notion that “target” is the mere study of “patterns of information diffusion.”

However, within the same statement, Menczer also echoes the abstract’s final conclusion, stating that “an important goal of the Truthy project is to better understand how social media can be abused.” This seems to contradict the claim that the database is focused only on how information is diffused, rather than its content.

Results of the project have already been widely published in peer-reviewed journals and have been presented at several conferences around the world. One of these studies shows how the researchers, including Menczer, studied the growth of Occupy Wall Street over a 15-month period. This was done by identifying Occupy-related content on Twitter and creating a dataset that “contained approximately 1.82 million tweets produced by 447,241 distinct accounts.”

In addition, the researchers also selected 25,000 of these users at random and monitored their behavior in order to study how these users may have changed over time. This effort included the compilation of the hashtags used by each user, their engagement with foreign social movements, and the extent to which these users interacted with one another.

In other words, while the creators of Truthy have presented their service as a means for the public to expose elected officials who inject misleading information into news feeds for electoral propaganda purposes, one of the primary uses is to track and keep tabs on individuals who engage in political discussions deemed “subversive” by US authorities. A previous report has already shown that local police departments were engaged in similar coordinated efforts to spy on Occupy protesters throughout the same 15-month period.

The revelations of Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks have shown the extent of domestic spying of national governments on their own citizens and the erosion of Constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression. Despite Menczer’s claim that the system was not “designed” to be a government watchdog program, there is no assurance that this project will not be used for that purpose.

The 25,000 Twitter users who were studied and tracked by the project’s developers certainly did not give permission to have their behaviors and tweets recorded and studied. Truthy will enable anyone, including federal officials, to similarly track and follow the actions of groups and individuals deemed to be “diffusing” ideas labeled as “misleading.” The fact that the United States government has already contributed more than $900,000 to this project only exacerbates this fear.

Ukraine: Russian Trucks Deliver Food — and Leave

August 30th, 2014 by Sara Flounders

Two hundred twenty-seven white paneled trucks ”invaded” Ukraine from Russia on Aug. 22, transporting large bags filled with grain, beans, drinking water, medicines, generators and sleeping bags. By Aug. 23, the trucks were back in Russia.

The trucks had delivered emergency survival supplies to the people in Lugansk, eastern Ukraine. Lugansk is resisting a military onslaught from the Kiev junta regime and the fascist groups active in that regime. The Kiev junta is the product of a coup against the elected government last Feb. 22.

U.S. officials, who support Israel’s slaughter of Gaza’s children, expressed outrage, shock and alarm at the truck convoy and threatened heavier sanctions against Russia, accusing that country of flagrant violation of Ukraine’s ­sovereignty.

The head of Ukraine’s security service, Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, called the Russian convoy a “direct invasion.” (cnn.com, Aug. 23)

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen issued a statement accusing Moscow of a “blatant breach of Russia’s international commitments.” (Washington Post, Aug. 22)

U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden asserted, “Russian vehicles violate Ukraine’s sovereignty.” (whitehouse.gov, Aug. 22)

Vice President Joseph Biden denounced “Russia’s blatant provocation and disregard of Ukraine’s sovereignty.” (Associated Press, Aug. 23)

The level of hypocrisy and cynicism from the world’s biggest warmakers knew no bounds.

Britain fully supported and participated in the U.S. massive bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. However, British ambassador to the U.N. Mark Lyall Grant denounced the Russian food trucks delivering supplies and withdrawing the following day as “an undeniable and blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and clear breach of international law and the U.N. charter.” (abcnews.go.com, Aug. 22)

In the interests of Wall Street’s profits, the U.S. military has invaded 74 countries in the past century. There were U.S. military operations and major troop movements in 14 countries in the past 15 years. These involved tens of thousands of troops, tanks, jet aircraft, armored personnel carriers and predator drones.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued its own strongly worded warning against an attack on the aid convoy: “We are warning against any attempts to thwart this purely humanitarian mission which took a long time to prepare in conditions of complete transparency and cooperation with the Ukrainian side and the [International Committee of the Red Cross]. Those who are ready to continue sacrificing human lives to their own ambitions and geopolitical designs and who are rudely trampling on the norms and principles of international humanitarian law will assume complete responsibility for the possible consequences of provocations against the humanitarian relief convoy.

“All the excuses to delay the delivery of aid to people in the area of a humanitarian catastrophe are exhausted. The Russian side has made a decision to act. Our column with humanitarian cargo starts moving toward Luhansk.” (globalresearch.ca, Aug. 22)

The bold distribution of supplies in east Ukraine took place just before the Aug. 24 event in Kiev where the pro-West regime celebrated Ukraine’s 23rd Independence Day. The coup leaders planned to use the occasion to call for increased defense spending.

In the lead up to this right-wing celebration and desperate for a decisive victory against the popular insurrection, the Kiev troops, led by fascist forces, had stepped up attacks on Luhansk and Donetsk with military aircraft, tanks and armored vehicles targeting residential areas and civilian facilities.

On the same day and in another type of stinging response to the fascist celebration in Kiev, rebel forces in Donetsk put two destroyed Ukrainian armored personnel carriers on display in Donetsk’s central Lenin Square and marched captured fascist thugs through the streets.

In Donetsk, an estimated one-third of the city’s population of 1 million has been evacuated, especially children. Many who remain have lived for weeks without electricity or running water and spent days hunkered down in bomb shelters.

U.N. officials estimate that more than 2,000 people have died and nearly 5,000 have been wounded in eastern Ukraine since mid-April.

Novorossiya Military Briefing – Novorossiya Shall Be!

We are currently witnessing an epic and in its own way historic event. The Ukrainian regular army and the punitive battalions are suffering a catastrophic defeat to the south of Donetsk. Only a short time ago the Republics were in dire straits: the DPR was hanging only by a thin supply thread, which the Ukrainian army was attempting to sever near Shakhtersk and Krasnyi Luch; the summit of Saur-Mogila has been abandoned, and Bolotov’s counteroffensive had failed to bring decisive victories.

To many it seemed that the Militia forces were on the ropes and just about to break, which would have led to the collapse of Novorossiya and a military victory for the fascist Junta.

Nevertheless, the Militia managed to withstand the most severe blow, which the Junta dealt with all the forces available to it in the first half of August. The Junta did not conceal its plans, and the preparations for the assaults on Shakhtersk and Lugansk were openly discussed. The bravura level of the Junta’s triumphant reports that came with each new breakthrough of its mechanized battle groups was off the charts.

pic2

The first critical moment came when the soldiers of the 25th Airborne Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (“UAF”) and the units of the National Guard broke into Shakhtersk. In those days, the fate of the DPR was hanging literally by a thread, and the Junta was on the verge of a strategic victory. But those few militiamen that mired the Junta forces in urban battles and held their ground until the reinforcements arrived saved Novorossiya from being dismembered into two parts. In subsequent battles, the Junta’s breakthrough was localized and defused, and, after sustaining heavy losses in personnel and military hardware, the Junta’s forces in this location were routed.

The second critical moment came when a strike was made from Debaltsevo through Fashchevka, intended to converge with the 24th Mechanized Brigade that was breaking out of the Southern Cauldron. It was an ambitious plan, whereby the enemy tried to bisect Novorossiya by using as a strike group the units that everybody assumed had been written off. This joint strike on Miusinsk and Krasnyi Luch triggered a severe crisis in Novorossiya because were very few troops in this area.

pic3Miusinsk, which the mechanized convoys of the junta slipped through unhindered, was hardly defended at all, and in Krasnyi Luch some of the Cossacks abandoned their positions. This gave rise to a palpable threat of Novorossiya being split in two and of the militia grouping located in the area of Torez-Snezhnoye-Saur-Mogila being eliminated. But, once again, the courage of ordinary soldiers who clung to the towns of Krasnyi Luch and Miusinsk allowed the Militia units to hold out until the arrival of the reserves that aided in the purge of the enemy from these cities. Having overcome the crisis, here also the Militia was able to win decisive battles, which had far-reaching consequences.

Because the offensive on Yasinovataya failed, the breakthrough to Verkhnyaya Krynka and Zhdanovka aimed at cutting off Gorlovka was liquidated, and the Junta failed to advance toward Yenakievo, in the second half of August the Junta’s offensive started to run out of steam and the Militia gradually began to gain offensive momentum.

pic4Objectively, the situation demanded that the Junta stop the offensive, regroup, pull up reserves, create stores of fuel and ammunition, and then continue the offensive by assembling new strike groups. Nevertheless, political considerations dictated a continuation of the offensive by the same depleted battle groups. Because the front in the LPR on the whole had stabilized, the South Cauldron was routed, and the offensive to the north of Donetsk had been stopped, the Junta continued its offensive in the south, trying to take Ilovaysk and Mospino head-on despite the serious operational risk. And as the more the Junta became embroiled in these battles, the narrower became the front of its offensive. Having begun in early August over a broad swath of the battlefront, already by August 20th the Junta’s offensive narrowed effectively to a single point.

The outer limits of this offensive were the southern slopes of Saur-Mogila, the semi-encircled Mospino and the southern suburbs of Ilovaisk. In the last few days of the offensive, it was reduced simply to a primitive frontal assault on Ilovaisk. Meanwhile, a threat that later proved to be fatal was looming on the Junta’s southern flank. Having finished off the Southern Cauldron and after repelling the offensive on Miusinsk and Krasnyi Luch, the Militia recaptured Marinovka (which in July-August twice went back and forth between the factions) and started to seep along the border toward the Uspenka border-crossing checkpoint, in the process encircling the Amvrosievka grouping.

pic5It is difficult to say why the Junta did not react to this threat – it is possible that the Ukrainian command decided that the only danger in this area was the activity of the saboteur-reconnaissance groups (“SRG”), which, though unpleasant, carried no operational significance. Alternatively, they may have thought that they will manage to achieve success near Ilovaisk and then fend off the threat coming from the south. As a result, the Militia was able to accumulate a sufficient force to the south-east of Amvrosievka, and this force carried out a cleaving strike on the supply lines of the main forces of the Junta that were embroiled in the fighting near Ilovaisk, Mospino and Saur-Mogila.

At the same time, the forces of the enemy advancing from the south were met to the west of Mospino with a strike by a mechanized battle group of the Militia. The Junta did not expect this maneuver because until quite recently they were the ones trying to encircle Mospino from both sides.

By the looks of it, the Junta’s intelligence missed this offensive entirely, and as a result of this oversight a comparatively small Militia force intercepted the main supply routes of the largest battle group of the Junta to the south of Donetsk. This grouping was comprised of the enemy’s most combat-capable units involved in the assaults on Mospino, Saur-Mogila and Ilovaisk, including the three punitive battalions – Azov, Shahtersk and Donbass-1, as well as the various reinforcement units and independent companies. More than 5,000 soldiers, approximately 180 various armoured vehicles, and up to 90 artillery pieces, mortars, and MLRS ended up being surrounded.

Though the difference in scale makes a direct comparison impossible, the militia actually carried out a mini-“encirclement operation” similar to the Stalingrad Cauldron – a classic pincer strike in converging directions. While the Junta’s battle group had no Romanians or Italians on its flanks, but it did, instead, have a gaping hole on one side, and on the other side – barrier troops that were never meant to withstand an attack by mechanized units. As a result, in addition to the unfinished remnants of the Dyakovo Cauldron, the Amvrosiyevka Cauldron was created, around which the militia began to create a ring of encirclement, spreading its offensive to the south and to the south-west and in the process occupying settlements deep in the rear of the southern grouping of the Junta. At the same time, the enemy command structures rapidly disintegrated. Battalion Azov in essence refused to subordinate, and the majority of its troops fled to Mariupol. Battalions Donbass-1 and Shahtersk became mired in urban combat for Ilovaisk and, instead of breaking out of the cauldron, started to demand tanks and artillery from the military in order to continue their assault on the city, which by that time was pretty much a lost cause.

[GR editor's Note: The following map indicates the military positions held by Ukrainian Kiev forces and those of Novorossyia, 18-24 August]

Because only rearguard unites without heavy weapons remained outside the cauldron, the Militia immediately began to develop the offensive to the south-west of Amvrosievka, toward Starobeshevo, and took it by the evening of August 26th. Meanwhile, militiamen were already moving toward Volnovakha on August 25th. Effectively, the loss of these centres means that here the Junta does not have positions from which it can try to break through to the surrounded forces. The encircled troops, in essence, ended up deep in the rear, far away from the new front line, and with a limited supply of fuel and ammunition.

pic7And this new frontline is a gaping hole for the Junta, which has nothing to plug it with. The remnants of its forces, including Battalion Azov, fled to Mariupol, in the process abandoning several settlements virtually without a shot. As a result, the Militia rolled directly into the suburbs of Novoazovsk and onto the approaches to Mariupol. On the Junta’s side, there is virtually no front from the area south of Starobeshevo and up to Novoazovsk. The Milita’s lack of sufficient troops is the only thing slowing down the looming catastrophe.

At the same time, the Militia also developed its offensive to the west of Mospino, toward Ugledar, Yelenovka, and Nikolskoye. Here the forces of the Junta are few in number, so the Militia’s offensive has been developing quite successfully, albeit not too rapidly. Near Yelenovka, yet another “mini-cauldron” has formed, and the connectivity of the Junta groups that held Donetsk in semi-encirclement has been irreparably compromised.

pic9The Junta has no reserves with which to relieve the encircled group and to patch the massive hole in the frontlines – they are now hastily withdrawing troops from Perekop (on the Crimean border) and bringing territorial battalions of questionable combat readiness to the front. They have also announced the 4th wave of mobilization and are trying quickly to drag ancient armoured vehicles from long-term storage to the frontlines, in order to compensate for the huge losses in personal and military hardware.

pic11Overall, it still is not quite clear how the Junta intends to avoid a complete defeat here. It will clearly not be able to restore the previous frontline, and the only question is whether the surrounded troops will be able to break out (and as they will have to do so on their own, it is likely that they will have to make that decision as soon as possible), and where the Militia’s offensive will stop – they still have fairly limited forces and they are now routing a larger force with a smaller force.

State Border of the Republic of Novorossiya

In the meantime, the once-solid front, which stretched from Marinovka to Yelenovka has now broken up into separate pockets of resistance with intercepted supply lines. After this disaster it became absolutely clear that the Junta does not have the capacity to destroy Novorossiya. By squandering the most combat-capable brigades in systematic offensive operations, the Junta sustained enormous losses and at the same time suffered a crushing, purely military defeat. The southern front has collapsed. Novorossiya shall exist!

We are much indebted to Slavyangrad.org for this report

Original: Colonel Cassad LiveJournal

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/27/the-southern-front-catastrophe-august-27-2014/

Translated from Russian by Daniel Mikhailovich / Edited by Gleb Bazov

 

“We are currently witnessing an epic and historic event. The Ukrainian regular army and the punitive battalions are suffering a catastrophic defeat to the south of Donetsk…..It still is not quite clear how the Junta intends to avoid a complete defeat here…. By squandering the most combat-capable brigades in systematic offensive operations, the Junta sustained enormous losses and at the same time suffered a crushing, purely military defeat. The southern front has collapsed.” – The Southern Front Catastrophe – August 27, 2014″, Colonel Cassad, Military Briefing, Novorossiya, Ukraine

“The reports out of Novorussia (New Russia) are nothing short of incredible… sources are reporting that Novorussian forces have bypassed Mariupol from the north and have entered the Zaporozhie region!” – News from the Front, Vineyard of the Saker

Barack Obama has pushed Ukraine to the brink of political, economic and social collapse. Now he wants to blame Russia for the damage he’s done. It’s absurd. Moscow is in no way responsible for Ukraine’s descent into anarchy. That’s all Washington’s doing, just as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria were Washington’s doing. If you want to blame someone, blame Obama.

Ukraine’s troubles began when the US State Department toppled the elected president in February and replaced him with a compliant stooge who agreed to follow Washington’s directives. The new “junta” government quickly launched a full-blown war against Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east which split the civilian population and drove the country to ruin. The plan “pacify” the East was concocted in Washington, not Kiev and certainly not Moscow.

Moscow has repeatedly called for an end to the violence and a resumption of negotiations, but each request has been rebuffed by Obama’s puppet in Kiev leading to another round of hostilities. Washington doesn’t want peace. Washington wants the same solution it imposed on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, that is, a chaotic failed state where ethnic and sectarian animosities are kept at a boiling point so forward-operating bases can be established without resistance, so resources can be extracted at will, and so a formally-independent nation can be reduced to a “permanent state of colonial dependency.” (Chomsky) That’s the basic gameplan wherever Washington goes. The same rule applies to Ukraine. The only choice the people have is to arm themselves and fight back. Which is what they’ve done.

Donetsk and Lugansk have formed militias and taken the war to the enemy. They’ve engaged Obama’s proxy-army on the battlefield and pounded it into mincemeat. That’s why Obama deployed his propagandists to lie about the fictitious “Russian invasion”. The administration needs a diversion because the Novorussia forces (aka-the “pro Russia separatists”) are kicking the holy crap out of Obama’s legions. That’s why Washington and Kiev are in full panic-mode, because none of this was supposed to happen. Obama figured the army would put down the insurrection, crush the resistance, and move him one step closer to his goal of establishing NATO bases and missile defense systems on Russia’s western flank.

Well, guess what? It’s not playing out that way and it probably never will. The Novorussia fighters are too tough, too smart and too motivated to be one-upped by Obama’s feckless troopers. (Check out this short video and you’ll see why the rebels are winning: Vineyard of the Saker)

Putin hasn’t sent tanks and artillery into Ukraine. He doesn’t need to. The militias are loaded with battle-hardened veterans who know how to fight and who are quite good at it. Just ask Poroshenko whose army has been taking it in the shorts for the last couple of weeks. Check out this blurb in Thursday’s Itar Tass:

“Over the week of August 16-23, the self-defense fighters of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics seized 14 T-64 tanks, 25 infantry fighting vehicles, 18 armored personnel carriers, one armored reconnaissance and patrol vehicle, one Uragan multiple launch rocket system, two Gvozdika self-propelled artillery guns, four D-30 howitzers, four mortars, one ZU-23-2 air defense system and 33 vehicles.” (East Ukraine militias seize large amount of Ukrainian armor, Itar Tass)

Get the picture? The Ukrainian army is getting beaten to a pulp, which means that Obama’s glorious “pivot strategy” just slammed into a brick wall.

Bottom line: Russia has not invaded Ukraine. The propagandists in the media are just trying to hide the fact that the Novorussia Army Forces (NAF; aka-the pro Russia separatists) are kicking ass and taking names. That’s what’s really going on. That’s why Obama and his gaggle of miscreant neocons are in a furor. It’s because they don’t know what to do next, so they’ve returned to their default position on every issue; lie like hell until they settle on a plan.

Naturally, they’re going to blame Putin for the mess they’re in. What else can they do? They’re getting their heads handed to them by a superior army. How do you explain that to the folks at home? Check out this excerpt from the New York Times Number One fiction writer, Michael “aluminum tubes” Gordon (who, not surprisingly, co-authored pieces with infamous Judy Miller in the lead up to the Iraq War):

“Determined to preserve the pro-Russian revolt in eastern Ukraine, Russia reinforced what Western and Ukrainian officials described as a stealth invasion on Wednesday, sending armored troops across the border as it expanded the conflict to a new section of Ukrainian territory.

The latest incursion, which Ukraine’s military said included five armored personnel carriers, was at least the third movement of troops and weapons from Russia across the southeast part of the border this week, further blunting the momentum Ukrainian forces have made in weakening the insurgents in their redoubts of Donetsk and Luhansk farther north. Evidence of a possible turn was seen in the panicky retreat of Ukrainian soldiers on Tuesday from a force they said had come over the Russian border.” (Ukraine Reports Russian Invasion on a New Front, New York Times)

“Stealth invasion”? In other words, Gordon has settled on a substitute for WMD. What a surprise.

This isn’t even good fiction; it’s more like Grimm’s Fairy Tales. And where are the photos? If you have evidence, Gordon, let’s see it. But, please, make sure it’s better than the last time, you know, those fake photos of Russian soldiers that were supposedly operating in Ukraine. That was another deceit, wasn’t it? (See: Another NYT-Michael Gordon Special?, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

This is like the Malaysia airlines crash, isn’t it? Remember how Kerry went on a five-TV-talk-show blitz the day after the crash, making all kinds of spurious accusations, about surface-to-air missiles and phantom Russian convoys, without a shred of evidence, and then— the very next day– Russian military experts calmly produced hard evidence, from radar and satellite data, that a Ukrainian fighter plane was seen closing in on MH17 just moments before it was downed. (BBC also interviewed eyewitnesses who saw the SU 25 approaching the passenger plane.)

So, who do you believe; Kerry or the facts? And who are you going to believe this time; “Aluminum tubes” Gordie or Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitor Andrey Kelin who said yesterday:

“We have said that no Russian involvement has been spotted, there are no soldiers or equipment present.”

“Accusations relating to convoys of armored personnel carriers have been heard during the past week and the week before that. All of them were proven false back then, and are being proven false again now.” (RT)

Repeat: “No Russian involvement”. All the accusations “were proven false.” “False” as in fake, phony, propaganda, bunkum, lies which, by the way, appears to be Gordon’s area of expertise.

Anyone who has been following the conflict knows that the Washington-backed junta in Kiev has waged a war against its own people in the East, and that they’ve been bombing hospitals, schools, libraries, apartments, public buildings, residential areas, etc, all in an effort to drag Putin into a war that will sabotage EU-Moscow economic integration and further US interests in the area. It’s all geopolitics, every bit of it. Remember the pivot to Asia? This is what it looks like in real time. A lot of people get butchered so the big money guys in Washington can maintain their grip on global power for another century or so.

Well, you can put that pipedream to rest now, mainly because a group of scrappy ex-military types in east Ukraine gathered themselves into an effective and lethal militia which has turned things around pronto. If you follow developments on blogs that chronicle the daily events, you’ll know that what I’m saying is true. The disorganized and demoralized rabble they call the Ukrainian Army has been routed in nearly every dust up they have with the Novorussia militia. Here’s how blogger Moon of Alabama summed it up on a post on Thursday:

“Their moral is bad, their equipment old, ammunition is low and the entire aim of their campaign is dubious. Now even a few weak counterattacks, the “counteroffensive”, have them on the run.”

The only thing he could’ve added to the litany is the fact that they are led by the biggest moron to ever hold high office, Petro Poroshenko, the overstuffed buffoon who thinks he’s Heinz Guderian deploying his Panzers through the Ardennes and on to Paris. What a joke!

The Times even admits that the Ukrainian army is badly demoralized. Take a look at this:

“Some of the Ukrainian soldiers appeared unwilling to fight. The commander of their unit, part of the Ninth Brigade from Vinnytsia, in western Ukraine, barked at the men to turn around, to no effect. “All right,” the commander said. “Anybody who refuses to fight, sit apart from the others.” Eleven men did, while the others returned to the city.

Some troops were in full retreat: A city busload of them careened past on the highway headed west, and purple curtains flapped through windows shot out by gunfire.” (New York Times)

Have you ever heard of a commanding officer asking his men whether they want to fight or not? It’s ludicrous. This is a defeated army, that much is clear. And it’s easy to understand how the average grunt feels, too. The average working guy doesn’t have the stomach for killing his own people. That’s not something he’s going to feel good about. He just wants to see the war end and go home, which is why they’re getting whooped so bad. It’s because their hearts aren’t in it. In contrast, the farmers, shopkeepers and miners who make up the militia are highly-motivated, after all, this isn’t some geopolitical game for them. Most of these people have lived in these cities their entire lives. Now they’re watching neighbors get gunned down in the streets or pulling friends out of the wreckage of bombed out buildings. For these people, the war is real and it’s personal. They’re defending their towns, their families, and their way of life. That tends to build resolve and focus the mind. Here’s more from the NY Times:

“The United States has photographs that show the Russian artillery moved into Ukraine, American officials say. One photo dated last Thursday, shown to a New York Times reporter, shows Russian military units moving self-propelled artillery into Ukraine. Another photo, dated Saturday, shows the artillery in firing positions in Ukraine.

Advanced air defenses, including systems not known to be in the Ukrainian arsenal, have also been used to blunt the Ukrainian military’s air power, American officials say. In addition, they said, the Russian military routinely flies drones over Ukraine and shares the intelligence with the separatists.” (Ukraine Reports Russian Invasion on a New Front, New York Times)

Photos? What photos? Gordon doesn’t have any photos. Ah, but he has heard about a New York Times reporter who saw a photo.

This is ridiculous, but, then again, isn’t that what you’d expect from a journalist who helped craft the pretext for invading Iraq?

Here’s how Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded to the claims of a Russian invasion. He said:

“It’s not the first time we’ve heard wild guesses, though, so far, the facts have never been presented…

There have been reports about satellite imagery exposing Russian troop movements. They turned out to be images from videogames. The latest accusations happen to be much the same quality…

We’ll react by persisting in our effort to reduce the bloodshed and to support negotiations about the future of Ukraine, with participation of all Ukrainian regions and political forces, something that was agreed upon back in April in Geneva, but which is now being deliberately avoided by our Western partners.” (RT)

There you have it; there is no Russian invasion anymore than there were WMD, mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, Sarin gas etc, etc, etc. It’s all BS concocted by a servile media pursuing the agenda of a warmongering political establishment that wants to escalate the conflagration in east Ukraine at all cost. Even if it leads to a Third World War.

Mke Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

 [Videos of Eastern Ukraine chaos (censored by US media) can be seen below]

Two churches in the Donetsk Region have been destroyed by shelling from Kiev troops, leaving three people dead. In the latest attack Monday, a church was completely destroyed, while on Saturday three worshipers were killed while praying.

In Monday’s attack on St. John Kronstadt Orthodox Church on the outskirts of Donetsk, the shelling “caused a fire, and the church was totally burned with its utensils and vestments,” wrote Georgy Gulyaev, the press secretary of the Donetsk Diocese, on his Facebook page.

In Saturday’s attack, also on a St. John Kronstadt Church, this time in the city of Kirovskoye, in the Donetsk Region, the church was totally destroyed during an all-night vigil, Gorlovsky and the Orthodox Diocese said on its website. The shell hit the roof of the building, which crashed onto worshipers.

“People were praying. Three of them were killed. We lost our loved ones,” a local woman told RT.

Among the victims of the attack was one of the church wardens and two parishioners. Several people were injured as well, added the Diocese.

St. John Kronstadt Orthodox Church, destroyed by Kiev troops in the city of Kirovskoye, in the Donetsk Region (Photo from gorlovka-eparhia.com.ua)

St. John Kronstadt Orthodox Church, destroyed by Kiev troops in the city of Kirovskoye, in the Donetsk Region (Photo from Gorlovka-                  

St. John Kronstadt Orthodox Church, destroyed by Kiev troops in the city of Kirovskoye, in the Donetsk Region (Photo from gorlovka-eparhia.com.ua)

St. John Kronstadt Orthodox Church, destroyed by Kiev troops in the city of Kirovskoye, in the Donetsk Region (Photo from gorlovka-eparhia.com.ua)

A video released by the Diocese showed that there is no roof and most of the church’s walls have been turned into rubble.

“I am asking [Kiev forces] – come to your senses! Look where you are sending your sons,” a local man told RT. “Where? What are you doing? Look at these ruins.”

Local residents in the city of Yasinovata, Donetsk Region, eastern Ukraine (screenshot from RT)

Local residents in the city of Yasinovata, Donetsk Region, eastern Ukraine (screenshot from RT)

The same shelling also hit the local hospital, killing two people and injuring several more.

Shelling in the Donetsk region has plunged the area into a worsening humanitarian crisis. For four long weeks the residents in Yasinovata, a town of 37,000 people 20 kilometers from the city of Donetsk, have been left without drinking water or food.

Local residents in the city of Yasinovata, Donetsk Region, eastern Ukraine (screenshot from RT)

Local residents in the city of Yasinovata, Donetsk Region, eastern Ukraine (screenshot from RT)

“There are 60 people in our shelter,” a local woman told RT’s Paul Slier. “We are trying to feed everyone. The conditions are terrible. There is no water, we’ve been waiting for it for a long time.”

Some of the people have nowhere to go, as their relatives have been killed.

“I’m all by myself. My son was killed,” a sobbing old woman told RT. ”Thank God they brought us bread and medicine.” She described to RT how it is to live under the attacks of the Kiev troops.

A local resident holds bread in the city of Yasinovata, Donetsk Region, eastern Ukraine (screenshot from RT video)

A local resident holds bread in the city of Yasinovata, Donetsk Region, eastern Ukraine (screenshot from RT video)

“We were on the ground and the missiles were flying in every direction. We thought this is the end,” she added.
The residents held in their hands bread received from a local bakery.

“Everybody knows that this is for humanitarian purposes, for hungry people, look at our bread, it’s perfect,” Natasha, a local baker, told RT.

Screenshot from RT video

Screenshot from RT video

The shelling by the Ukrainian military reached the Petrovsky and Kievsky districts of Donetsk on Tuesday morning, resulting in three deaths, according to the city council.

Also early Tuesday, self-defense forces fought with Ukrainian troops in Illovaysk, Elenovka and Yasinovata.

 

Kiev’s military operation in eastern Ukraine began in April after people in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions refused to recognize the new coup-imposed authorities and demanded federalization of the country.

According to UN figures, over 2,000 people have so far been killed and over 5,000 wounded in the fighting.

With heavy fighting under way in the crisis-torn country, the distribution of humanitarian aid from Russia started in besieged cities in the Lugansk Region on Monday.

Download video (12.52 MB)

It makes no sense to comment in detail on the satellite imagery released by NATO as “proof” of Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine, Defense Ministry’s spokesman said, pointing out that even high NATO officials were hesitant to put their names on it.

Referring to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Supreme Allied Commander Europe Philip Breedlove, and NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov ridiculed the so-called NATO proof.

“You know, it has become ridiculous… If earlier, someone would at least put their names on those images, be it Breedlove, Rasmussen, or even Lungescu, now, they are hesitant,” Konashenkov said as cited by RIA Novosti. “It makes no sense to seriously comment on this.”

The General also criticized western media outlets for accepting such images and anti-Russian stance at face value.

“The phrase ‘NATO published satellite shots of Russian troops’ presence in Ukraine’ has become as common in recent months as the famous ‘British scientists have discovered…” Konashenkov said, referring to a media cliché often ridiculed in Russia. “Usually those words are followed by the results of some new crazy research that has no practical sense whatsoever.”

“Apparently, the new Secretary General of NATO in the near future will have to exert much effort in order to restore the severely tainted image of the alliance as a high-status international organization,” Konashenkov added.

A handout photo provided on August 28, 2014 by DigitalGlobe via NATO allegedly shows Russian self-propelled artillery units set up in firing positions, near Krasnodon, Ukraine (AFP Photo / HO / DigitalGlobe)

A handout photo provided on August 28, 2014 by DigitalGlobe via NATO allegedly shows Russian self-propelled artillery units set up in firing positions, near Krasnodon, Ukraine (AFP Photo / HO / DigitalGlobe)

The Defense Ministry statement follows a war-mongering media rhetoric blaming Russia for invading Ukraine, after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Thursday, accused Russia for violating its sovereignty and called on the UN Security Council to assess the situation.

Simultaneous to Kiev’s accusations, NATO made public satellite images that were offered as “proof” that Russian self-propelled artillery was on the Ukrainian territory, as well as about 1,000 Russian troops taking part in special operations in eastern Ukraine. The images, as usual, were provided by a commercial company DigitalGlobe operating civilian satellites. The images were not altered or edited with NATO experts only adding extra information for the general public to understand what they are looking for.

READ MORE: Online list of army units ‘relocated to Ukraine’ is a fake - Russian Defense Ministry

The US as always sided with Poroshenko’s statements and NATO-offered evidence, with US Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki saying that Washington has “no reason to doubt their [NATO's] assessment.”

Meanwhile both the head of OSCE’s Ukrainian monitoring team and Russia’s representative said there was no Russian presence spotted across the Ukraine border, refuting claims that a full-scale invasion was underway.

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said Russian troops had entered Ukraine. The statement came as NATO released satellite images that it claimed showed Russian self-propelled artillery on Ukrainian territory. The alliance said about 1,000 Russian servicemen were taking part in hostilities in eastern Ukraine.

Russia’s permanent representative to the EU Vladimir Chizhov also said neither NATO, the United States or the European Union have presented any evidence of Russian troop presence in the east of Ukraine.

According to him, the “stuffing of misinformation through the media and directly from Kiev” each time is carried out on the eve of important meetings at the EU level, this time ahead of the summit on August 30 in Brussels, “probably in anticipation of some critical language and even sanctions from the EU,” Itar-Tass quotes.

And indeed, US President Barack Obama joined the chorus of anti-Russian rhetoric on Thursday, warning Moscow that more sanctions are in the works as the US is currently in consultation with its “European allies” ahead of a NATO meeting next week.

Cold War 2.0 rages. It’s heading dangerously toward East/West confrontation.

Putin and Obama are geopolitical opposites. They represent conflicting values.

Putin supports multi-world polarity. He believes national sovereignty is inviolable. He opposes imperial lawlessness.

He believes no nation has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of others.

Obama claims a divine right to wage war on humanity. To invent enemies when none exist.

To ravage one country after another. To control their resources. To exploit their people.

To achieve unchallenged global dominance. To risk humanity’s survival in the process.

Propaganda wars rage. They precede hot ones. Big Lies launch them. Washington bashes Russia irresponsibly.

US-led NATO marches in lockstep. On August 29, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen issued a statement following “an extraordinary meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission.”

It’s a decision-making body. It’s responsible for developing NATO-Ukraine relations. It was established in July 1997.

Big Lies followed Friday’s meeting. According to Rasmussen,”it is now clear that Russian troops and equipment have illegally crossed the border into eastern and south-eastern Ukraine.”

“This is not an isolated action, but part of a dangerous pattern over many months to destabilize Ukraine as a sovereign nation.”

“Russian forces are engaged in direct military operations inside Ukraine. Russia continues to supply the separatists with tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers.”

“Russia has fired on Ukraine from both Russian territory and within Ukraine itself. Moreover, Russia continues to maintain thousands of combat-ready troops close to Ukraine’s borders.”

“This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It defies all diplomatic efforts for a peaceful solution.”

“Today, we expressed strong solidarity with Ukraine. At the Wales Summit next week, we will meet President Poroshenko to make clear NATO’s unwavering support for Ukraine.”

“We condemn in the strongest terms Russia’s continued disregard of its international obligations.”

“We urge Russia to cease its illegal military actions, stop its support to armed separatists, and take immediate and verifiable steps towards de-escalation of this grave crisis.”

It bears repeating. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. It’s not waging war on its sovereignty. It has no revanchanist aims.

It’s not supplying “separatists with tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers.”

It hasn’t fired on Ukraine cross border or from within its territory. It doesn’t threaten Kiev with thousands of combat-ready troops near its border.

It doesn’t interfere in its internal affairs. It goes all-out for peaceful conflict resolution. Don’t expect Rasmussen to explain.

US-led NATO is an imperial tool. It’s for offense, not defense. It’s a global killing machine. It prioritizes war. It deplores peace.

It’s heading for direct confrontation with Russia. It’s creating a so-called expeditionary force. It’ll include 10,000 troops.

According to the Financial Times, “Britain and six other states (Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and the Netherlands) (will) create a fully functioning, division-sized force for rapid deployment and regular, frequent exercises.”

Increasing its size may follow. British commanders will lead air, naval and ground forces. Canada may become involved.

According to Rasmussen, at issue is establishing “a more visible (Eastern European) presence…to counter Russia.”

Putin’s NATO envoy, Aleksandr Grushko, said any attempt to encroach closer to Russia’s borders will impact Moscow’s own security planning.

Until the 1990s, Norway alone adjoined Russia. According to Stop NATO’s Rick Rozoff:

In 1999, NATO expansion began. Four new members were added “directly up to Russian territory: Estonia and Latvia to northwestern Russia proper and Poland and Lithuania to the non-contiguous Kaliningrad Oblast.”

Ukraine is a NATO partner. It’s heading toward full membership status. Most likely with Finland.

Together they’ll “cover (Russia’s) entire western flank,” said Rozoff.

It extends “from the Arctic Ocean and Barents Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south…”

Plans include “NATO air bases, naval docking facilities, firing ranges and training grounds, airfields, radar installations, storage compounds, cyber warfare centers, interceptor missile batteries, armored vehicles, troops and tactical nuclear weapons.”

Washington and its NATO allies see Ukraine “as the decisive linchpin in (their) plans to (establish) a military cordon sanitaire severing Russia from Europe.”

In 1995, Ukraine became the first post-Commonwealth of Independent States member to join NATO’s Partnership of Peace.

It aims to include all European countries “and the rest of former Soviet space not already in the bloc,” Rozoff explained.

It’s to marginalize, contain and isolate Russia. In December 2008, Washington initiated the US/Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.

Its objectives include:

“Deepening Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions…” Doing so is called “a mutual priority.”

Planning will “undertake a program of enhanced security cooperation intended to increase Ukrainian capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO membership.”

It will be “(g)uided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and the April 4, 2008 Joint Statement of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, which affirmed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.”

“Recognizing the persistence of threats to global peace and stability, the United States and Ukraine intend to expand the scope of their ongoing programs of cooperation and assistance on defense and security issues to defeat these threats and to promote peace and stability.”

“A defense and security cooperation partnership between the United States and Ukraine is of benefit to both nations and the region.”

“Working within the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, our goal is to gain agreement on a structured plan to increase interoperability and coordination of capabilities between NATO and Ukraine, including via enhanced training and equipment for Ukrainian armed forces.”

Before crisis conditions erupted last November, NATO sought four partners for its global Response Force, Rozoff explained. They include Ukraine, Georgia, Finland and Sweden.

With a US-installed “proxy regime” in Kiev, Ukraine is heading toward becoming “a veritable gargantuan forward base for the Pentagon’s and NATO’s inexorable, now generation-long, drive to the east…”

It’s “overrun with Western military advisers and intelligence agents…” It “host(s) warplanes, warships, armor, troops and missiles…”

It courts “Western leaders with a degree of ambitiousness and recklessness surpassing anything hitherto contemplated.”

It’s a dagger pointed at Russia’s heartland. It threatens to escalate crisis conditions into full-blown East/West confrontation.

On August 29, Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers submitted legislation repealing the country’s non-bloc status. According to putschist prime minister Arseniy Yansenyuk:

“In accordance with the decision adopted by the National Security and Defense Council, the government of Ukraine has submitted a bill that repeals the Ukrainian state’s non-bloc status and re-establishes Ukraine’s course towards membership in NATO to parliament for consideration.”

The law lets Ukraine belong to any other economic, political and military units as long as they don’t interfere with its EU membership plans.

If adopted, Ukraine will be banned from Customs Union, Eurasian Union and similar organization memberships.

Yatsenyuk calls them “the Soviet Union under the name of the Russian Federation.”

He urged Ukraine’s parliament to consider the bill urgent. Passage is rubber-stamp.

Ukraine and Russia share a near-1,500 mile land and sea border. Expect Washington to take full advantage.

Expect NATO bases threatening Moscow’s security. East/West confrontation looms.

Propaganda wars hasten the possibility. They rage irresponsibly. They threaten world peace.

They turn truth on its head. They blame Russia for US orchestrated crimes. Ukraine is its newest imperial tool committing them.

They risk the unthinkable – possible nuclear confrontation able to end life on earth if launched.

Imperial madness defines Washington’s agenda. Permanent war is official policy.

All US wars are based on Big Lies. Truth is suppressed to wage them. Propaganda wars precede them.

They rage to enlist public support. They stoke fear. They generate misinformation. At issue is advancing America’s imperium.

It’s making the world safe for monied interests. it’s turning ordinary people into low-wage slaves. It’s cracking down hard on non-believers.

It’s creating full-blown tyranny. It’s making America and other countries unfit to live in.

Washington’s imperial war machine is humanity’s greatest threat. Presidents use it at their own discretion.

International, constitutional and US statute lars don’t matter. World peace hangs by a thread.

Washington created Ukrainian crisis conditions. They’re the most serious since WW II.

Obama’s new friends are reckless neo-Nazi infested fascists. They ignore rule of law principles. Their human rights record is appalling.

They’re in the eye of the storm. They’re waging war on their own people.

In league with Washington and other rogue NATO states, they recklessly challenge Russia.

Possible global war looms. Today is the most perilous time in world history. Daily events should scare everyone.

Today’s upside down reality threatens everyone.Criminality is rewarded. Warmakers win peace prizes. Peacemakers are vilified.

On Friday, a Russian-sponsored Security Council Southeastern Ukraine peacemaking initiative was blocked. According to Moscow’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin:

“The Russian delegation’s proposal on declaration of a ceasefire was blocked under a frivolous pretext.”

“The Security Council as a result of destructive efforts of a number of its members was unable to play its role in resolving the Ukrainian crisis.”

Washington’s dirty hands bear full responsibility. Britain and France are imperial partners. Other nations are pressured to go along.

Moscow’s text expressed serious concerns about Southeastern Ukrainian crisis conditions. It called for “immediate and unconditional ceasefire.”

It urged dialogue “based on the Geneva Declaration of 17 April 2014 and the Joint Berlin Declaration of July 2, 2014.”

In Geneva, US, Russian, EU and Ukrainian foreign ministers agreed all parties must refrain from “violence, intimidation, or provocative acts.”

They “call(ed) for an immediate commencement of a broad national dialogue which must be inclusive, transparent and accountable.”

It must be “within the framework of the constitutional process, which must be inclusive and accountable.”

It “must be resolved by the Ukrainians themselves concerning an end to the conflict.”

Other conflict ending provisions were agreed on. Kiev committed violations straightaway. Washington supports and encourages its crimes.

In July, German, French, Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers met in Berlin. They reaffirmed their commitment to Southeastern Ukrainian peace and stability.

They agreed on the necessity of halting conflict. It rages daily out-of-control.

Russia has gone all-out to resolve things diplomatically. Its proposed August 29 Security Council resolution is its latest effort.

Its text included “multiply(ing) efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to the population of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions…”

Churkin was clear, unequivocal and correct. He called Southeastern Ukrainian conflict a “direct consequence of a wreckers policy of Kiev which is conducting a war against its own people.”

He called on Washington to “curb their geopolitical ambitions.” Stop interfering in the affairs of other states, he urged.

“Then not only Russia’s neighbors, but also many other countries around the world will breathe a sigh of relief,” he added.

Kiev aggression continues “(w)ith support from and under the influence of a number of well-known states,” Churkin explained.

He left no doubt which ones he means. Or which one is most responsible. Or how they influence Kiev to sabotage “all political agreements on settling the crisis in Ukraine.”

Its oligarch president Petro Poroshenko’s so-called “peace plan” promotes escalated war.

“Where is the inclusive national dialogue promised by Kiev, or the constitutional reform, or the decentralization of the authority or the special status for the Russian language,” Churkin asked?

Promises made were empty. They’ve been systematically broken.

Dissent is criminalized. Regime opposing political parties are banned. Press freedom is nonexistent. Police state authority runs things.

Ukraine is a global flashpoint. Conflict conditions risk the unthinkable.

Peaceful resolution is urgently needed. Washington’s rage to dominate blocks it. World peace hangs by a thread.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

In one of the most decisive, shocking incidents of a brutal war, NRG reports (Hebrew) that the IDF killed three of its own soldiers after it feared they’d been captured by Hamas fighters. 

The incident was one in which Lt. Goldin was captured (possibly after he’d already been killed) and two of his comrades were killed.

Amir Rappoport, writing for NRG, says:

As a result of activation of the Hannibal Directive, three IDF soldiers were killed and 120 [ed., the actual number was 160] Palestinian civilians were killed from cannon fire [as a result of IDF fire that destroyed the surrounding neighborhood].

The incident [the Hamas attack] resulted from dealing with the tunnels, during which a suspected Hamas cell emerged from one of the houses.  The cell included a suicide bomber and began a battle during which three of the Givati soldiers were killed.  It should be stated that in the process of attempting to stop the “kidnapping” of Hadar Goldin, the Hannibal Directive was implemented.  This resulted, according to Palestinian sources, in 120 deaths, the majority of which were civilians.

…A number of terrorists emerged from a tunnel in Rafah with the goal of “kidnapping” a soldier.  At the same time, Givati troops were on patrol in the area, under the command of Maj. Benaya Sarel, attempting to locate and destroy tunnels.  The force met a cell in an open area between the houses where there it had identified an open shaft.  That’s where they [the Palestinian force] took the missing soldier and the same shaft from which they [originally] emerged [for their attack].  Givati forces recognized that a “kidnapping” had occurred and, according to reports, activated the Hannibal Directive, according to which the IDF lays down fire in the direction of the “kidnappers.”

Afterward, they commenced heavy fire in that direction, which it appears struck all the fighters [both the Hamas cell and captured IDF soldiers].  Other units arrived to assist in freeing them, at which time they understood the team leader was missing.

hadar goldin, benaya sarel, idf dead

It’s important to note that nowhere in this report does it say that the Hamas fighters killed the three IDF soldiers who died during this skirmish (though it does say the cell may’ve fled into the tunnel with Goldin’s body).  The entire premise is that the IDF killed them as a result of the massive amount of fire it used after the Hannibal Directive was declared.  This fact has never been reported in the Israeli media.  Until now, it was only suspected that Goldin had died as a result of deliberate fire from his own comrades.

What’s equally interesting is that Rappoport at no time makes much of this dramatic finding.  Instead, he focuses on blaming the Gaza division commander for refusing to allow the Givati tank force to destroy houses in which his troops suspected tunnels, due to a ceasefire.  The report seeks to blame him for not being aggressive enough and not being willing to violate the ceasefire even if it meant protecting his men.

It’s standard for Israeli media to focus on dereliction of duty in refusing the use of maximum force, rather than on a far more troubling fact that Israeli soldiers killed their own during this operation.

The nuclear talks which were infused with unnecessary optimism are no longer seen by many to yield much fruit as Washington once again reveals its true colors and pernicious intentions by imposing further sanctions on Iranian companies and individuals.

As a rule, Washington has never proved to be a trustworthy and reliable partner and any idea to the contrary stems from a naïve perception of the realities on the ground.

On Friday, the US government announced the imposition of a new round of sanctions on over 25 Iranian individuals and companies, including shipping firms, oil companies, airlines and six banks despite the fact that Iran and the six world powers Russia, China, France, Britain and the US and Germany are in the process of talks with the intention of resolving the West’s nuclear standoff with Iran.

What seems to be the truth of certitude in this regard is that Iran will by no means back down on its rights in the least bit and that further sanctions imposed by the West will only conduce to the complication of an issue which could be resolved if the West really wanted.

In point of fact, the new sanctions which fly in the face of international laws and regulations have exasperated the Iranians and the Iranian officials and fortified the swelling distrust of the Iranian nation in Washington.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said the sanctions must be confronted because they invade the rights of a nation.

“Sanctions are an invasion of the Iranian nation. We should resist the invasion and put the invaders in their place,” Iranian president Hassan Rouhani told officials on Saturday. “We should not allow the continuation and repetition of the invasion.”

The paradox is that Washington has frequently voiced its concern over Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’, saying the country may achieve the required technology to produce nuclear weapons while at the same time, it is Washington which capitalizes on chaos and commotion in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular by funding and arming the Takfiri groups in Syria in cahoots with the West in order to oust a legitimate government and replacing it with a US-friendly. And quite brazenly, it turns a blind eye to the subhuman atrocities committed at the hands of the ISIL Takfiri groups in Iraq and Syria.

To crown it all, Iranian pseudo-scholars in the West come up with their uniquely ludicrous remarks concerning the chaos in the Middle East and seek to downplay the mounting sway of the Islamic Republic in the region and instead aggrandize the waning influence of Washington in the world.

In a recent post, Payam Mohseni who runs the Iran Project at the Harvard Kennedy School said, “I perceived the Iranians to be very confident about their rising power ….,” remarking that “Iran has gained much from the regional turmoil, including in Syria and recently in Iraq with the rise of ISIS. This perception was particularly striking during my discussions with leading conservative figures of the state.”

Apparently, he is far removed from the realities as he is physically removed from his country. By far, almost everyone excepting those bereft of political perception knows that it is Washington that is benefiting hugely from the chaos in the Middle East.

Even American officials have admitted to the fact that the ISIL Takfiris are being supported by the West.

Senator Rand Paul has told NBC News’s ‘Meet the Press’ that the US government has been funding ISIL allies and supporting the terrorist group in Syria.

“They’re emboldened because we’ve been supporting them … It could be Assad [could have] wiped these people out months ago,” the Kentucky senator said.

“I personally believe that this group would not be in Iraq and would not be as powerful had we not been supplying their allies in the war.”

Besides, a document released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that Ibrahim al-Samarrai AKA Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the man who leads ISIL, is an intelligence asset. The document reveals the United States, Israel, and Britain are responsible for the creation of ISIL.

Nabil Na’eem, the founder of the Islamic Democratic Jihad Party and former top al-Qaeda commander, has told the al-Mayadeen channel that all current al-Qaeda affiliates including ISIS work for the CIA.

To the horror of many, the NSA document disclosed that the group was formed by US, UK and Israel intelligence apparatus as part of a strategy known as the hornet’s nest in order to attract the fundamentalists from around the world to Syria.

After all, if the US has recently shown a sudden interest in combating the ISIL Takfiris who are currently on a beheading spree in Iraq, it seeks other ulterior motives. Just recently, General Martin E. Dempsey, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff summarized his perception of the ISIL Takfiris and said,

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated.”

Dempsey noted that destroying ISIL will require “the application of all of the tools of national power — diplomatic, economic, information, military.”

Then he enunciated that liquidating the ISIL militants is only possible through invading Syria.

“Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no,” Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon.

To sum up, Washington’s policies on Syria, Iraq and Iran are purely paradoxical and are only meant to incite chaos, to capitalize on the chaos and turn things to its own benefit.

In the final analysis, chaos, crisis, sanctions are tools in the hands of Washington to achieve its sinister goal in the Middle East region in the first place i.e. giving a practical shape to a long-envisioned plan in the first place, that is, creating a Greater Middle East utterly servile to the USA and in the second, to strategically stifle Iran as a burgeoning and snowballing power.

Abu Dhabi is in a “state of confusion” after American officials accused them of carrying out air strikes in Libya, according to an online report.

The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan has not yet decided how to respond to revelations in the New York Times that the UAE’s air force bombed Tripoli on 17 and 23 August, reported Asrar Arabiya, an online site that purports to reveal “Arab secrets”.

While not the country’s president, many view Sheikh Mohammed as being the UAE’s de facto leader. President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan has reportedly been unwell for some time and rarely makes public appearances.

Emirati diplomatic sources told Asrar Arabiya that Abu Dhabi had expected “the bombardment would pass without American and Western radars detecting it” and were now concerned the incident could negatively impact on UAE-US relations.

The diplomatic sources revealed that six French-made Mirage 2000 warplanes were used in the bombing attacks, which killed at least 18 Libyan militiamen battling for control of the capital’s airport. The sources said the raids were launched from a military base near Siwa, a desert oasis close to the Egyptian border with Libya.

There is a military airport in Siwa, where the main street is named after the UAE’s President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, in honour of a 1mn Egyptian pound ($140,000) donation made last year to build a solar power plant in the town.

An MEE source, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed the Asrar Arabiya report as being accurate.

The UAE is the fourth largest arms importer in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and spent over $19bn on military equipment in 2012. Among its arsenal are 138 jets, which include the French Mirage 2000, six of which were donated by the Emiratis for use in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya.

Emirati officials have declined to respond publicly to the allegations, instead saying they have “no reaction”. The “confusion” in Abu Dhabi has “prevented the issuance of any denial or confirmation”, according to the Asrar Arabiya report.

Libya’s former parliament, the General National Congress (GNC), said on Tuesday they intend to take the issue to the International Criminal Court for investigation. The GNC is not recognised as the Libya’s legitimate parliament, however, after a House of Representatives was popularly elected in June.

Reports that the UAE attacked Libya have been described as a watershed moment by analysts, who said it is the first the Emiratis have directly attacked another country in its short history.

“This is incredibly significant, as it is the first hard evidence of the UAE shifting from proxy to engaging in a hot conflict for the first time in its history,” Christopher Davidson, reader in Middle East politics at Durham University and author of After the Sheikhs: the Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies, told MEE earlier this week.

“There is now a leadership in place that has abandoned the UAE’s historic foreign policy pillars, which under Sheikh Zayed [the country’s first president] involved being carefully realists about the small wealthy country’s position in the regional system,” he added.

The UN Security Council on Wednesday pledged to fight instability in Libya “by all means” necessary. A strongly worded resolution vowed to use targeted sanctions against people “who threaten stability” and head off a descent into all out civil war.

There is a group of American billionaires who are apparently doing their best to make sure that negotiations with Iran go nowhere in the mistaken belief that they are doing what is best for Israel. And they would also appear to be assisted in their efforts by the White House, which is at the same time claiming that it wants the talks to be successful. The odd relationship is currently playing out in a Manhattan courtroom where the Justice Department is seeking to squash a lawsuit that it fears might expose the extent to which the government has hypocritically played fast and loose with classified information while simultaneously sending journalists and whistleblowers to jail over allegations that they have done the same.

The power and wealth of the anti-Iran groups as well as their unrivaled access to the United States government means that a policy of détente with Iran, which would be a no brainer based on both American and Iranian interests, only proceeds by fits and starts with the US Congress and much of the media lined up solidly to stop the effort. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliated educational foundation, which have focused on the “Iranian threat” over the past three years, have a combined budget of more than $90 million while AIPAC’s spin-off the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) has $8.7 million.

The American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) efforts are more diversified but uniformly hawkish when it comes to the Middle East. It has a budget of $45 million. Identified multi-million dollar donor/supporters of AIPAC, AEI, and WINEP include Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands, Paul Singer of Elliot Management hedge fund and Bernard Marcus of Home Depot.

Other right wing think tanks including Heritage and Hudson in Washington also support unrelenting pressure directed against Iran. Even the more centrist Brookings Institute is hard core when it comes to Middle Eastern politics by virtue of its Saban Institute funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban. And then there are the mainstream Jewish organizations to include the Anti Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the American Jewish Congress, all of which have vast resources and unparalleled access to the White House, Congress and the media.

All the pro-Israel anti-Iran groups engage in pressure tactics on Capitol Hill and have been effective in dominating the political debate. Of thirty-six outside witnesses brought in to testify at seven Senate hearings on Iran since 2012 only one might be characterized as sensitive to Iranian concerns. The enormous lobbying effort enables the anti-Iran groups to define the actual policies, move their drafts of legislation through congress, and eventually see their bills pass with overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate. It is democracy in action if one accepts that popular rule ought to be guided by money and pressure groups rather than by national interests.

Less well known is United Against Nuclear Iran, which has a budget just shy of $2 million. UANI is involved in the New York lawsuit. The group, which has somehow obtained a 501[c]3 “educational” tax status that inter alia allows it to conceal its donors, has offices in Rockefeller Center in New York City. It is active on Capitol Hill providing “expert testimony” on Iran for congressional committees, to include “help” in drafting legislation. At a July Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iran all three outside witnesses were from UANI. It is also active in the media but is perhaps best known for its “name and shame” initiatives in which it exposes companies that it claims are doing business with Tehran in violation of US sanctions.

UANI is being sued by a Greek billionaire Victor Restis whom it had outed in 2013. Restis, claiming the exposure was fraudulent and carried out to damage his business, has filed suit demanding that UANI and billionaire Thomas Kaplan turn over documents and details of relationships regarding UANI donors who it is claimed are linked to the case. Kaplan, a New York City resident, made his initial fortune on energy exploration and development. More recently he has been involved in commodities trading in precious metals. His wife Daphne is Israeli and his involvement in various Jewish philanthropies both in the US and in Israel have invited comparison with controversial deceased commodities trader Marc Rich, who reportedly worked closely with the Israeli government on a number of projects.

The Justice department would like to the see the UANI lawsuit go away as it is aware that what is being described as “law enforcement” documents would include both privileged and classified Treasury Department work product relating to individuals and companies that it has investigated for sanctions busting. Passing either intelligence related or law enforcement documents to a private organization is illegal but the Justice Department’s only apparent concern is that the activity might be exposed. There is no indication that it would go after UANI for having acquired the information and it perhaps should be presumed that the source of the leak is the Treasury Department itself.

Who or what provided the documents to a private advocacy group that is also a tax exempt foundation supported by prominent businessmen with interests in the Middle East is consequently not completely clear but Restis is assuming that the truth will out if he can get hold of the evidence. The lawsuit claims that UANI intimidates its targets by defaming their business practices as well as by demanding both examination of their books and an audit carried out by one of its own accountants followed by review from an “independent counsel.”

Kaplan is named in the suit as he appears to be the gray eminence behind UANI. He once boasted “we’ve (UANI) done more to bring Iran to heel than any other private sector initiative.” Kaplan also employs as a director or officer in six of his companies the Executive Director of UANI Mark Wallace and reportedly arranged the awarding of the Executive Director position at Harvard’s Belfer Center to its President Gary Samore.

Kaplan is a business competitor to Restis, whose lawyers are apparently seeking to demonstrate two things: first, that the US government has been feeding sometimes only partially vetted information to UANI to help in its “name and shame” program and second, that UANI is itself supported by partisan business interests like Kaplan as well as by foreign sources, which apparently is meant to imply Israel. Or even the Israeli intelligence service Mossad. Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, is on the UANI advisory board, which also includes ex-Senator Joseph Lieberman and former Senior Diplomat Dennis Ross, both of whom have frequently been accused of favoring Israeli interests and both of whom might well have easy access to US government generated information.

And then there is the Muhadedin-e-Khalq, the Iranian terrorist group that has assassinated at least six Americans and is now assisting the Israeli government in killing Iranian scientists, a prima facie definition of what constitutes terrorism. The group was on the State Department terrorist list from 1997 until 2012, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton de-listed it in response to demands coming from friends of Israel in Congress as well as from a large group of ex government officials, many of whom were paid large honoraria by the group to serve as advocates. The paid American shills included former CIA Directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. The promoters of MEK in congress and elsewhere claimed to be primarily motivated by MEK’s being an enemy of the current regime in Tehran, though its virulent anti-Americanism and terrorist history make it a somewhat unlikely poster child for the “Iranian resistance.”

Supporters of MEK also ignore the fact that the group is run like a cult, routinely executes internal dissidents, and has virtually no political support within Iran. But such are the ways of the corrupt Washington punditocracy, lionizing an organization that it should be shunning. MEK’s political arm is located in Paris and it has long been assumed that it is funded by the Israeli government and by at least some of the same gaggle of billionaires, possibly including their Israeli counterparts, who support the anti-Iranian agenda in the United States.

Iranian negotiators have accepted that their country should have only limited uranium enrichment capabilities coupled with a rigorous inspection regime but the talks in Geneva drag on and on as the United States continues to hesitate, raising new objections regularly in spite of claims that it operates in good faith and seeks a settlement. That an agreement is within reach is undoubtedly true and it would even be good for Israel as it would remove the regional nuclear option while making much less likely another pointless and devastating war. But the men who write the checks do not see it that way and, unfortunately, they are the ones who all too often both pay the piper and call the tune.

Why does a demonstration of hundreds of people against “anti-Semitism” in Toronto seem more like a march for white supremacy than a rally against racism?

On August 20, reported the Canadian Jewish News, several thousand took to Bathurst Street under the slogan “We Will Not be Silent: A March Against Global Anti-Semitism.” The demonstration was organized by United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith Canada, Canada Israel Experience, March of the Living Canada and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) Canada.

If one were to take the organizers’ slogan seriously this demonstration was among the largest anti-racist mobilizations in recent Canadian history. But, unfortunately it was little more than a group of “white” people calling for the further subjugation of “brown” folk.

Photos and articles suggest that many among the racially homogenous crowd carried Israeli flags and celebrated that country’s recent military onslaught on Gaza. The Times of Israel reported: “The purpose of the march was passionately summed up in Bill Glied’s closing remarks: ‘Thank God for the IDF. Thank God for Israel. And remember together we must stand. Never again!’”

Despite shrill voices claiming otherwise, most objective evidence reveals anti-Semitism to be a mere shadow of its former oppressive character. (An example of this ‘if I scream loud enough people may believe me’ tactic, Toronto businessman and board member of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Michael Diamond, wrote in the Canadian Jewish News last month that “we Jews are under siege right now – on campus, in Israel, in the media, even in our high schools and on the street.”)

Well, how does this compare to seven decades ago when “none is too many” was the order of the day in Ottawa, which rejected Jewish refugees escaping Nazi concentration camps. This hostile anti-Semitic climate continued into the 1950s with some neighborhoods excluding Jews from owning property through land covenants and institutions such as McGill University in Montreal imposing quotas on Jewish students.

Fortunately, Christianity’s decline, combined with a rise in anti-racist politics has significantly undercut anti-Semitism as a social force in Canada.
Today, Jews are largely seen as “white” people. Canada’s Jewish community is well represented among institutions of influence in this country and there is very little in terms of structural racism against Jews (which is not to say there isn’t significant cultural stereotyping, which must be challenged). In fact, among elite business, political and professional circles Jewish representation far surpasses their slim 1.3% of the Canadian population.

Canadian Jews are twice as likely as the general population to hold a bachelors degree and three times more likely to earn over $75,000. In The Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture Mark Avrum Ehrlich claims that a fifth of the wealthiest Canadians were Jewish and Toronto’s Shalom Life reported that six of the 24 Canadians who made Forbes’ 2011 list of global billionaires were Jewish.

Even the sad history of structural anti-Semitism in this country should be put into proper context. When Jewish immigrants were blocked from entering Canada so were most non-Europeans. Similarly, the land covenants that excluded Jewish property ownership usually took aim at other groups as well and throughout the university quota period few South Asians or blacks had any access to higher learning. During this period of institutional discrimination against Jews, Status Indians were unable to vote and the Indian Act prohibited First Nations from practicing their religious/cultural ceremonies (such as potlatches, pow-wows, sweat lodges and sun dances).

It would be disingenuous at best to claim anti-Semitism has or had anywhere near the effect of racism against First Nations or other people of colour in Canada.

A little over-zealous defence of one’s own “tribe” could perhaps be forgiven, but not when accompanied by a ringing endorsement of the racist militarism sweeping Israeli society. Over the past two months the Israeli military has killed some 1,700 Palestinian civilians in Gaza and there has been an upsurge in racist outbursts targeting those seen as a threat to the Jewish character of the state (mostly Palestinian citizens of Israel but also African refugees and anti-Zionist Jews).
One of the groups that organized the Toronto protest has long promoted Jewish/white supremacy in the Middle East. The Jewish National Fund may be the only openly racist registered charity operating in this country.

While it was made illegal to restrict the sale of property to certain ethnic or religious groups in Canada a half-century ago, the JNF does just that in Israel today. The JNF’s bylaws and lease documents contain a restrictive covenant stating its property will not be leased to non-Jews. A 1998 United Nations Human Rights Council report found that the JNF systematically discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about 20 percent of the country’s population. According to the UN report, JNF lands are “chartered to benefit Jews exclusively,” which has led to an “institutionalized form of discrimination.”

More recently, the US State Department’s 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices detailed “institutional and societal discrimination” in Israel. The report noted, “Approximately 93 percent of land was in the public domain, including approximately 12.5 percent owned by the NGO Jewish National Fund (JNF), whose statutes prohibit sale or lease of land to non-Jews.”

In Israel, as in Canada, Jewish/white privilege is a much greater social problem than anti-Semitism. It’s time to check that privilege.

Syria Refugee Total Nears Ten Million

August 30th, 2014 by Patrick Martin

More than three million Syrians have fled the country and another 6.5 million are internally displaced, the top UN agency for refugees announced Friday. At nearly ten million, the total number forced from their homes amounts to nearly half the country’s total population.

A statement released by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva declared, “Almost half of all Syrians have now been forced to abandon their homes and flee for their lives. One in every eight Syrians has fled across the border, fully a million more than a year ago. A further 6.5 million are displaced within Syria. Over half of those uprooted are children.”

The organization warned that its own resources are being exhausted by the unprecedented exodus from Syria, which is the largest UNHCR has ever confronted. It is surpassed in number only by the five million Palestinian refugees, who receive aid through a separate UN agency.

Those fleeing Syria are increasingly impoverished and desperate, UNHCR said, displaying signs of physical exhaustion and extreme fear. In many cases, families have been on the run within Syria for the past year before they reach the border crossings.

The vast majority of refugees from Syria have gone by land routes to the three countries that border on its north and south—Turkey, with 815,000 registered refugees, Lebanon, with 1.14 million, and Jordan, with 608,000. Few refugees have moved east into Iraq, which is ravaged by its own civil war and where the border is closed, and even fewer have the resources to leave by air or sea to countries beyond the Middle East.

The recent upsurge of fighting in Iraq and eastern Syria has not greatly increased the number of refugees, as figures nearly as high as these were tallied in a UN report on global refugee movement in late June (see: “Impact of war and persecution: More than 50 million displaced persons worldwide”).

It appears that many refugees are still trapped within Syria by the increased fighting, as well as tighter enforcement of border security measures by Jordan and Turkey. The figure of 6.5 million internally displaced is likely a gross underestimate. For example, in the city of Aleppo, one of the main battlefields, barely ten percent of the 2011 population of three million still remains in their homes.

The refugee exodus is a human catastrophe created by the imperialist intervention in Syria that began with the US-sponsored destabilization of the Assad regime in 2011. Since then, the United States, Britain and France, together with US allies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, have funneled arms and other supplies to Islamist forces seeking to mobilize the majority Sunni population in an increasingly sectarian struggle against the Assad regime, whose military dictatorship has been based on political support from the minority Alawites, a sect linked to Shi’ite Islam.

There is no doubt that stepped-up US military intervention, including the widely expected launching of air strikes and drone missile strikes against territory controlled by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), will only exacerbate the humanitarian disaster in Syria.

Anecdotal accounts by refugees newly crossing the border suggest the hellish conditions facing the Syrian population. Bread costs ten times what it did a year ago, and the cost of gasoline and fuel has also skyrocketed. The economy has virtually collapsed, and along with it, the healthcare system, once among the most advanced in the region. Fifteen percent of those arriving in Jordan cited long-term medical conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer as the reason for moving, because they could no longer obtain medical treatment or prescription drugs.

Except for physical security, conditions are little better in the countries where they have taken refuge. Only 350,000 children are enrolled in school, although children comprise an estimated 1.5 million of the refugees. Only 400,000 people are in official shelters, with the rest either sleeping in the open, or crowded into the poorest urban areas of Beirut, Amman, Antakya and other cities.

António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said the Syrian crisis “has become the biggest humanitarian emergency of our era, yet the world is failing to meet the needs of refugees and the countries hosting them.” The supply of aid is “far short of what’s needed,” he said.

Donor countries and organizations have provided $4.1 billion in aid since 2012, a sum that amounts to less than $700 per person per year based on the current refugee population. UN officials said that $2 billion in additional aid was required, including winter housing for 2.4 million people.

The imperialist powers are intensifying their confrontation with Russia in the run-up to today’s European Union (EU) meeting and next week’s NATO summit in Wales. The escalation, which is being driven by Washington and Berlin, is increasing the danger of a military conflict between NATO and Russia that could result in a nuclear war.

The 28 NATO ambassadors came together briefly on Friday for an emergency meeting in Brussels. “We condemn in the strongest terms the fact that Russia is continuing to ignore its international obligations,” said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. “We are pushing Russia to halt its illegal military action, end its support for armed separatists, and undertake immediate and verifiable steps to deescalate this serious crisis,” he declared.

In fact, the entire meeting confirmed that NATO’s policy is not “deescalation,” but escalation, and that in the Ukraine conflict, it is not Putin who is the aggressor, but the Western powers.

Rasmussen, along with the government heads of all of the NATO countries, conveniently overlooks the fact that Berlin and Washington triggered the crisis by organizing a coup in close collaboration with fascist forces against the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych. Now they are working closely with the puppet regime they installed, led by the billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko, to brutally crush a separatist insurgency in Russian-speaking parts of eastern Ukraine as the first step in militarily encircling Russia and reducing it to a neo-colonial status.

Ukraine’s NATO ambassador and chief of the NATO-Ukraine commission, Igor Dolgov, used Friday’s meeting to demand weapons to prosecute the war in eastern Ukraine. “What we need is more aid, including military,” he said.

Rasmussen went a step further, suggesting that Ukrainian membership in NATO was a possibility. “Allow me to recall the decision reached by NATO in 2008, according to which Ukraine will become a member,” he stated, and added cynically, “Every country has the right to make decisions independently and without external influence.”

Just prior to the meeting, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk called for Ukraine to move toward NATO membership. At a cabinet meeting, he announced that his government planned to end the country’s non-aligned status and begin the process of applying for entry into NATO. He added that membership in the European Union was also a goal.

The moves toward Ukrainian membership in NATO underscore the fact that next week’s NATO summit is aimed at preparing for a possible war against Russia. Rasmussen told the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung this week that the summit would strengthen NATO’s provisions for collective defense, authorize a further build-up of NATO troops in Eastern Europe, and mandate an increase in the minimum level of member states’ defense budgets.

“In the future, you will see a greater NATO presence in the east,” he said. “Every potential aggressor must know that if they even think of attacking a NATO member, they will have to contend with soldiers not only from the affected country, but with NATO troops.”

Ukrainian membership in NATO would put a direct conflict with Russia on the order of the day. According to Article Five of the NATO charter, collective defense is triggered when a member state is attacked by another country.

Rasmussen on Friday repeated the alliance’s claims that thousands of Russian soldiers had intervened in Ukraine. The previous day, Brigadier General Nico Tak, head of the crisis operation center in Mons, Belgium, had shown satellite photos allegedly proving that Russia was directly intervening militarily in Ukraine.

Russia once again rejected the allegations. “This is not the first time we have heard such speculations,” said Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “But the US has never proven them with facts.”

The satellite pictures were not proof, but “only computer games,” he declared. He added that the Kiev government was nervous due to recent military successes by the separatists. “That’s why there are claims now about a Russian invasion.” He reiterated Moscow’s call for an immediate ceasefire in the east of Ukraine.

Russia is desperately seeking a deal with the West, but all signs point to an escalation by Berlin and Washington. On Thursday, it was apparent that US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had agreed in a telephone conversation on a harder line towards Russia. German government spokesman Stefan Seibert said after the discussion that the two had agreed Russia’s behavior could not continue without consequences.

On Friday, the German government spoke for the first time of a Russian intervention in Ukraine. Seibert claimed that considerable evidence had emerged of the presence of Russian soldiers and weapons.

This weekend’s EU emergency summit in Brussels is set to discuss further sanctions against Russia.

Germany is already leading the build-up of NATO forces in Eastern Europe. On Thursday, four German Euro Fighter jets were moved to the Ämeri airbase in Estonia. The same squadron had previously agreed to provide 100 soldiers for NATO missions.

As German soldiers were being moved into Eastern Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin compared the actions of the Ukrainian army against cities in eastern Ukraine with the siege of Leningrad by the Nazi Wehrmacht. Putin told Interfax, “Their tactics remind me of the fascist German soldiers in the Soviet Union in the Second World War. Major cities were besieged and destroyed by deliberate fire, along with residents.”

The German media, which has been churning out anti-Russian war propaganda for months, sought to dismiss Putin’s statement as a “dubious historical comparison” ( Spiegel Online ). But some of their own journalists on the spot in eastern Ukraine express horror over the crimes of the Ukrainian army.

Wolfgang Bauer, a reporter for Die Zeit, wrote in the newspaper’s latest edition of the siege of Donetsk, a city of over one million residents. Under the headline “In the midst of the battle,” he said: “The Ukrainian army has been firing heavy artillery into Donetsk for days. The morning after we arrived, two men died at a tram stop in the city center. A 14-year-old boy who wanted to visit his friends, and an older mine worker. Splinters of bone and blood covered the tarmac.

“People in Donetsk are dying when they cross the street to go shopping, when they sit on the park bench, or they die while having breakfast in the kitchen. The Ukrainian army is obviously trying to hit military targets with their heavy artillery, based on the grounds of the airport in the north of the city. But they are always missing them when they shoot with their thirty-year-old cannons.”

The imperialist powers are prepared not only to stoke up the devastating war in eastern Ukraine, they are utilizing the crisis which they themselves provoked to secure their geo-strategic and economic interests against nuclear-armed Russia. The enthusiastic pro-war commentary in the Western media makes clear how far they are prepared to go, and where it could lead.

The Austrian correspondent for the London-based business publications Financial Times and Economist, Eric Frey, wrote in an article in the Vienna-based Der Standard under the headline “The West must stop Putin:”

“Negotiations with Putin are currently pointless, because he lies in the face of every negotiating partner. He must somehow be made aware that he has miscalculated, that the West will not accept this aggression. Only then is there a possibility to talk. This will probably only take place with a further intensification of the sanctions, including the breaking off of all economic relations with Moscow, as well as direct military aid to Kiev. Weapons exports, the stationing of NATO troops in Ukraine, and even US air strikes against separatist positions and Russian supply lines: all of these options should be on the table at present.”

Frey knows that his “options,” which doubtless reflect plans that are being readied behind the scenes by NATO and the Western powers, could provoke a nuclear world war.

He wrote:

“It is highly risky, because Putin is not the type to back down easily. The growing war danger threatens the already weak economy in Europe, the bloodletting in eastern Ukraine will not come to an end, and the streams of refugees will grow. And at the end of this process of escalation, a confrontation between two nuclear powers threatens. Almost all major wars were the result of miscalculations, at least on one side. This could also be the outcome this time.”

Last Saturday, Angela Merkel went to Kiev to pledge increased financial and political support for the coup-installed regime’s war against separatist forces in the eastern and largely Russian-speaking part of Ukraine.

Seldom in recent history – and that is saying a lot – have we witnessed a more transparently stupid, and in the final analysis, suicidal act of statecraft.

Despite what you might have heard or read over the last six months, the goings on in Ukraine have virtually nothing to do with democracy or Putin’s supposed desire to reconstruct the Soviet Union, and everything to do with the US need to eke out a few more years of world hegemony by sowing chaos among the nations, or emerging coalitions of nations, it sees as having any ability to put a check on its now largely unchecked military and financial power.

As Putin’s advisor, Sergei Glaziev, said in a wonderfully succinct manner a few days ago, this is all about the US desire to destroy the peaceful, and until now, quite mutually beneficial set of relations between post-Soviet (and post-Yeltsin) Russia and the nations of the EU.

Why would the US want to do that?

Because the idea of an increasingly integrated economic space stretching from Lisbon to the Kamchatka Peninsula, scares the daylights out of the geopolitical strategists in Washington and New York, as well as their friends in the London poodle pound.

They realize that if peace and commerce were to continue to break out in this way, it could lead, in a relatively short period of time, to the end of the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency, a change that would lead, in turn, to the end of the US’s ability to bully others, especially the Chinese, into pumping up our economy by buying our increasingly valueless – on the level of intrinsic economic production – financial instruments.

The answer? Drive a wedge between Putin and the Europeans by instigating a Civil War in Ukraine, a war which, for readily evident historical and cultural reasons, is virtually guaranteed to provoke the vigorous involvement of Russia. With Russia bogged down in this way, the emerging system of Eurasian integration, sketched out briefly above, will be stopped in its tracks, letting the militarily straightjacketed and grossly indebted US ignore the fact of its terminal decline for another day.

One can see how the pack of cocksure and deeply ignorant arrivistes making foreign policy in the Obama administration, entranced by the apparent urbanity of the geriatric and preternaturally Russian-hating Brzezinski, might sign on to such a scheme.

But Merkel?

How could this woman, who spent the first decades of her life in the deeply layered absurdity the Communist East Germany, not see through the ruse, and to the funereal effects it is not only bound, but designed, to have on the 300 million person European social, political and economic project she currently leads in her capacity as German chancellor?

Is she simply dumb? Or could it be, as some have suggested, that the US intelligence agencies had their maws into her neck for a very long time, starting well before they had the ability to read all her email and listen in on all of her phone calls?

As I am ultimately unable to substantiate or deny whether she truly is dim and/or a long-standing asset of the US, I can only speculate about her behavior in this and other crucial matters on the basis of something I do understand: the rapidly changing information environment in Europe, and more specifically, the dramatically increased ability of the US government-media complex to sell its simplistic master narratives regarding “how the world works” to the most educated sectors of continental society.

Over the last thirty years, I have spent a considerable amount of time in Europe. During the first two-thirds of that period, one of the greatest joys of my days there was reading the continental press.

During the eighties, when Michael Deaver, Reagan’s image man, was waging his wildly successful battle to neuter the oppositional vocation of US journalists, and with it, their desire and ability to transmit complex problems and ideas to the citizenry, the quality papers of Europe were still refreshingly irreverent, and quite suspicious of established power.

For example, during this time many writers at El País, practically all of whom had grown up under the heavy-handed Catholic moralizing of the Franco regime, delighted in referring to Pope John Paul II, solely by his last name of Wojtyla.

It was their way of declaring themselves free of one of the oldest and most successful controlling techniques of the established political class: insulating themselves from critique by forcing citizens to address them through the always highly protective screens of “decorum” and “protocol”.

They were especially suspicious of US claims to be, as many now like to say, “a unique force of good in the world”. Columns in mainline papers of both the center left and the center-right in countries such as Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, and yes even in Great Britain (in the Independent and the Guardian) would regularly and quite frontally take issue with the US foreign policy prescriptions, especially those enacted in Latin American and the Middle East.

It is precisely within this then still extant ideological frame that the French center-right politician, Dominique de Villepin, made his impassioned plea for peace – and against US warmongering – at the he UN in March of 2003.

Shortly thereafter, however, all this began to change. Just as intelligent people in the US were figuring out just how corrupted by their relationship to power our mainstream media – with its pompous and hollow invocations of “neutrality” and “balance” – truly were, the prestigious European papers began to ape the New York Times and its ever more aggressive efforts to narrow the parameters of “responsible” opinion in accord with the desires of the financial and military elites in New York and Washington.

Put another way, just as the more critically engaged readers here were coming to understand the need for truth-seeking, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may, “opinion Journalism” of the type perhaps best exemplified by Glenn Greenwald, Europeans began a headlong rush to abandon their long and quite fruitful adherence to the very same tradition.

Returning to Spain and El País, this change was symbolized the rise of people like Moisés Naim, a one time minister in the kleptocratic government of Carlos Andrés Pérez in Venezuela who has recast himself as a great and wise international strategist, and the enforced marginalization, at the same time, of people like Maruja Torres, a fervent iconoclast who, not coincidentally perhaps, also happens to have a long and passionate attachment to the Arab world and to Arab culture.

This transformation was capped off last May when the paper named Antonio Caño to be its managing editor. In the ten years spent as El País’s Washington bureau chief prior to this appointment, he never met a day-old New York Times, trope, cliché or story line that he did not think was worthy of being retransmitted without modification to the good folks back in Spain.

At the outset of the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld and his closest advisors used to talk a lot about their desire to achieve “full spectrum dominance”. I think it is fair to say that most people hearing about this idea then envisaged its application terms of advanced military hardware and/or the strategic basing of US troops around the world. Few, I think, thought of the term primarily in the context of information warfare.

However if we recall a famous anonymous quote (widely believed to have been uttered by Karl Rove) from an article by Ron Susskind in the October 17th,, 2004 issue of the NYT Sunday magazine, we would perhaps be well-advised to begin viewing Rumsfeld’s stated aspirations through this prism.

In that piece, the unnamed White House aide said: “’We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

“We create our own reality”. Is there any phrase more apt to describe what is going on in Ukraine?

There, the US engineered a coup with the help of self-professed Nazis and then openly supported the same Nazi-infested coalition in its efforts to provoke a bloody civil war on the doorstep of one of its two remaining strategic rivals in the world.

And this has been widely and successfully sold in to European progressives – in a way that would have been flatly unthinkable as recently as ten years ago – as a case of brutal Russian aggression!

The European press has always had it pro-American stooges, or as they are called in polite language, fervent Atlanticists, ready to spread the core postulates of the US (and by extension, Israeli) worldview to their readers. I am thinking here of the people like Joseph Joffe and the ever-ridiculous ball of vanity and intellectual superficiality known as Bernard-Henri Lévy.

But for much of the last three decades, they constituted but one current among many other competing strains in the European press.

Since approximately 2004, however, their specific gravity within European opinion-making apparatus – as evidenced by the changes at El País and other similar “liberal” media outlets – has increased dramatically. Now simplistic American assumptions about who is bad and who is good once chuckled at on the continent, are the new normal in the editorial boards Europe’s “prestige press”.

And because of this, the US can now impose its invented “imperial realities” upon Europe’s citizenry with relative ease.

In such an environment, only the most intellectually confident and morally steadfast politicians (a minuscule class in today’s Europe) can resist the need address the pressing “truths” invented in Washington.

Hence, the recent pledges of love and support from Chancellor Merkel to the US puppet in Kiev, Petro Poroshenko.

I cannot explain exactly how this dramatic transformation in the European opinion-making system was effected. But in light of what we now know from the Snowden revelations, I would not be at all surprised if, at some time in the not too distant future, we find that the US poured enormous clandestine resources into a concerted drive to make this crucial change in “consensus management” take place.

Ukrainian officials are now claiming a Russian invasion of four to five thousand ground troops backed by columns of tanks and other armored vehicles, a dramatic escalation from yesterday’s claims of about 1,000 such troops.

As with yesterday’s allegations, Ukraine is offering no evidence to back up the claims, and the reports coming out of the region suggest such a massive invasion is not likely to be happening at all.

Ukraine’s government not offering backup for its allegations is nothing new, but is particularly conspicuous today, as media provides images of the few hundred rebel fighters’ advance in southeastern Ukraine, but offers nothing to support the claims that thousands of Russian troops and armor are traveling with them.

The US, which had been rubber stamping Ukrainian allegations for months, seems to be particularly hesitant this time, and is saying they can’t independently confirm any of the allegations being made this time. President Obama, who was eager to exploit the claims to push more sanctions, still did not lend any credence to the claims actually being true, and yesterday said nothing the US saw happening in the east was a “shift” in Russian policy.

Ukraine’s wild allegations have become so common and so often untrue that they have very little credibility left, and indeed this is the third separate invasion they’ve alleged to have taken place in the past week.

So far, the only “invasion” that had any truth to it at all was the one where Russian trucks delivered humanitarian aid to the city of Luhansk, and while Ukraine was eager to chalk it up to a military invasion, the trucks left the following day.

As with the phantom “column” on armored vehicles Ukraine claimed to have destroyed earlier this month, the lack of photographic evidence speaks volumes, and the allegations seem to be aimed primarily at getting increased “emergency aid” as opposed to informing people about the actual situation on the ground.

What is happening in Rwanda? On Aug. 26, the BBC reported that Burundian officials are investigating to determine why Rwandan bodies have been found floating in Lake Rweru, on Burundi’s border with Rwanda.

The discovery is not only gruesome but also ominous because both East African nations suffer from extremely volatile Hutu-Tutsi ethnic rivalries rooted in centuries of Hutu oppression by a feudal Tutsi aristocracy, which became a colonial elite in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Attempts to institute European democracy, between 1959 and 1961 in Rwanda, and in 1993 in Burundi, turned the existing social order upside down, giving electoral advantage to the Hutu majorities, which the Tutsi minorities refused to accept. War, genocide and massacres ensued and both nations, neither of which is yet 100 years old, are commonly described as tinderboxes awaiting a match.

Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame is a Tutsi, Burundi’s President Pierre Nkurunziza a Hutu. Despite past alliances of convenience, they are now antagonists. In 1993, Burundi’s Tutsi military elite assassinated that country’s first democratically elected president, Hutu Melchior Ndadaye, triggering genocidal massacres of both ethnicities in Burundi and escalating fears of the same – which did indeed follow – in Rwanda.

In 1994, near the end of a four year war of aggression, Kagame ordered the assassination of both Rwanda and Burundi’s Hutu presidents by shooting their plane out of the sky on April 6, 1994, and then launched a carefully planned, U.S. backed military offensive to seize power and restore Tutsi rule in Rwanda, even as the country sank into chaos and genocidal massacres of both ethnicities.

Any conclusion that the bodies floating in the lake are victims of state execution, genocidal execution or both could be incendiary within the two countries and/or between them. That incendiary potential has been manipulated by both foreign and domestic elites, who are no doubt following this story closely, and most likely attempting to control its outcomes.

These bound and bagged bodies certainly have the look of state execution, genocidal or not, and the simple conclusion that they were state executions has incendiary potential in itself. Rwandan President Paul Kagame arrested three of his own top military officers last week, as resistance continued to rise within his own Tutsi elite.

Rwandan or Burundian bodies?

Burundian official Jean Berchmans Mpabansi told the BBC that, ‘‘The victims are not Burundian citizens because the bodies are coming from Akagera River flowing from Rwanda.”

The Voice of Burundi reported, translated here from the French: “In recent days corpses wrapped in plastic bags are found floating on Lake Rweru on the border between Burundi and Rwanda in Muyinga Province.

“More than 40 bodies floating in the Rweru Lake town of Giteranyi have been seen and counted since the month of July by the fishermen, as confirmed by the local administration and police. This week, these fishermen, accompanied by a unit of the Navy, saw two bodies on the mouth of the Akagera.”

Rwandan Police said that no one has been reported missing in Rwanda, and Burundian Police said the same about Burundi. Both claims are unlikely because the national police of any country of 10 or 11 million people is sure to have a list of missing persons at any given time.

It’s particularly unlikely in the case of Rwanda, because on May 16, Human Rights Watch reported that “an increasing number of Rwandans have been forcibly disappeared or reported missing” and that some were known to have been forcibly disappeared by Rwanda’s army, the Rwandan Defense Force. HRW detailed 14 cases of missing persons.

In mid-July HRW spoke to the anniversary of the murder of Gustave Makonene, coordinator of Transparency International Rwanda’s Advocacy and Legal Advice Center in Rubavu, Rwanda:

“The details of Gustave Makonene’s death are gruesome. His body was found outside the lakeside town of Rubavu, in northwestern Rwanda, on July 18, 2013. The police medical report indicated he was strangled. Local residents who saw his body gave Human Rights Watch more graphic detail. They believed his body may have been thrown from a car on a road above the lake and ended up twisted around a large tree, which had blocked its fall into the water.“

There have been neither investigations nor charges. Another HRW essayist asked, “Why is the whole world still silent on the murder of Rwandan activist Makonene?” On August 1 Transparency International issued a press release saying that the staff of all five of their Rwandan offices are in danger.

President Paul Kagame’s plausibility problem

Rwandan President Paul Kagame has never been noted for plausible or consistent explanation. After 18 years of Rwandan invasion, occupation, assassination and resource plunder in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all copiously documented, he continues to tell Western television audiences that he cannot be held responsible for the problems of Congo, that Congo’s problems began with colonialism long before his birth.

And, of course, he continues to say that his destiny is to save and forever protect the Rwandan people from genocide, because, as he tells the story over and over, the world abandoned Rwanda in 1994. It’s a matter of record that Kagame himself threatened to fire on U.N. troops if they attempted to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, but that’s never been of concern to corporate broadcast anchors. Neither has Kagame’s U.S-backed invasion of Rwanda, commanding a detachment of the Ugandan army in October 1990. Nor has the four year war that those Ugandan troops waged in Rwanda between October 1990 and July 1994. Nor has the active intervention of the Clinton Administration to prevent the UN from intervening in Rwanda in 1994.

The story of four years of war and mass killing in Rwanda has instead been shortened and simplified into a 100-day morality play about genocide ending with “Never again!”  And, Kagame has been allowed to trump all evidence and reason by playing the genocide card for so long that he feels in no way compelled to offer a plausible or consistent explanation of anything.

Nearly 50,000 people reported missing in Rwanda this year

Although Rwandan officials denied, on August 26th, that anyone is missing, the government has, on other days, acknowledged that nearly 50,000 people have disappeared this year. The government says they’re missing, but dissident Rwandan refugees and exiles say they’re dead – and that they are Hutu victims of Kagame’s slow, silent, systematic Hutu genocide – genocide by exclusion, poverty, starvation, sterilization and execution.

Rwandans whom the government acknowledges are missing include 16,000 Hutu villagers from the country’s northwestern Ngororero District. Rwandan Interior Minister James Musoni acknowledged, in the country’s Kinyarwanda language, that these villagers are missing but said that the government has no idea where they’ve gone and fears they may have crossed Rwanda’s border with DR Congo to join the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).

Rwandan refugee Ambrose Nzeyimana translated the English into Kinyarwanda and posted “Kigali acknowledges the disappearance of 16,000 of its citizens” to his British-based blog, The Rising Continent. Rwandans in exile write that these people have been massacred by the Kagame regime as part of its program to slowly, quietly, and systematically eliminate the Hutu population. Their belief is based on their own experience, their contact with extended family in Rwanda, and their attention to the Kinyarwanda press.

Rwandan prison authorities acknowledge that 30,000 Hutu prisoners sentenced to “community service” (hard labor) have also disappeared, Rwandan exiles, again, write that they’ve been executed by Kagame’s genocidal government.

It’s difficult to imagine how a government with one of the best trained, best equipped African military and security forces, including local forces everywhere, in one of the most tightly controlled, dictatorial regimes in the world, could lose track of 30,000 state prisoners. However, the government, again, and the Ibuka Tutsi survivors’ group, claim to fear that these people may have escaped across the border to join the FDLR in DR Congo, where they now constitute a threat to genocide survivors.

As with so much in Rwanda, including the history of the 1990-1994 war and genocide, there is a Tutsi version of the truth and a Hutu version, but the Tutsi version is legally enforced and championed worldwide by rich and powerful people, including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Rev. Rick Warren and Howard Buffett. Despite wholesale de facto discimination against Hutu people, they join Kagame in proclaiming that truth and reconciliation have been achieved in Rwanda, and ethnicity is no longer important.

Prisoners incinerated?

More Rwandan Hutu prisoners may have perished in a fire on June 5, 2014, in Rwanda’s largest prison, Muhanga Central Prison in Gitarama, and then in a second prison fire at Nyakiriba Prison in Rubavu (Gisenyi) on July 7.

Rwandan exiles write that prisoners in both Muhanga Central Prison and Nyakiriba Prison were intentionally incinerated in their cells, once again as part of a slow, silent, systematic Hutu genocide.

Is it likely that two, geographically distant Rwandan prisons would be destroyed or badly damaged by fire in barely more than one month? All we know is what Rwandan authorities say, and all they say is that there were two prison fires but no prisoners died.

Muhanga Prison, formerly known as Gitarama Central Prison, was known to be one of the most hellish prisons on earth. In 1995, a London Independent headline about it read, “Hutus held in ‘worst prison in world’: 7,000 suspects of Rwanda massacre are kept in jail built for 400.

On June 6, the International Red Cross reported that “the accommodations” of 3,500 prisoners went up in flames in Gitarama but that the Rwandan government said no prisoners were in their cells at the time.

Hard evidence?

There will be no hard evidence of the truth behind any of these missing persons reports, except perhaps those few filed by Human Rights Watch, unless the U.N. Security Council deems the situation in Rwanda so dangerous to international security and stability that an independent U.N. investigative team must be allowed in, as when U.N. investigator Hans Blix’s team was allowed into Iraq before the 2003 U.S./U.K. invasion.

Of course, the U.S. and U.K. ignored Blix’s conclusion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as the U.S. and allied states will ignore any evidence counter to the security interests now defined by their executive corporate, military and foreign policy elites, not by popular democracy.

However, that’s no reason not to call for investigation. It’s better that Hans Blix’s team was allowed into Iraq than not, for the sake of history and global consciousness, and we can continue to work for just outcomes. Independent U.N. investigations should be undertaken, post haste, into each instance of individual and mass disappearances in Rwanda, and into why bound, bagged bodies were found floating in Lake Rweru between the shores of Rwanda and Burundi.

Why has the U.S. renewed support for Kagame’s Rwanda?

Why did the U.S. renew its political and military support of Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s dictatorship at the U.S.-Africa Summit? Why is the U.S. threatening the Hutu refugees organized as the FDLR with military action if they refuse to disarm and surrender unconditionally?

The FDLR may be armed in self-defense, but Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region Russ Feingold has acknowledged that they pose no credible threat to Rwanda. The majority of Rwandan Hutu refugees in eastern Congo are simply that – refugees – who dare not return to Rwanda for fear of having their names added to these long lists of missing persons that the Rwandan government says it’s unable to explain.

Rwandan opposition leaders, Hutu and Tutsi alike, and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete have all called upon the Rwandan government to negotiate with the FDLR for safe repatriation to a Rwanda in which they will not be a de facto Hutu underclass threatened with elimination. ,

On January 4th, former Rwandan General Kayumba Nyamwasa told KPFA: “I understand the guiltiness that maybe some could be feeling about their failure to stop the genocide. But you don’t support somebody who’s in the process of creating another genocide. And I think they should be able to examine their consciences, look at what is happening in Rwanda, and see exactly what is taking place.”

Many Rwandan Hutus, refugees and exiles believe that if the regime now headed by Paul Kagame remains in power for another 50 years, there will be no Hutu people left in Rwanda.

Oakland writer Ann Garrison writes for the San Francisco Bay View, Counterpunch, Global Research, Colored Opinions, Black Agenda Report, and Black Star News, and produces radio news and features for Pacifica’s WBAI-NYC, KPFA-Berkeley and her own YouTube Channel. She can be reached at [email protected]. If you want to see Ann Garrison’s independent reporting continue, please contribute on her website, anngarrison.com.

America Has Undertaken Regime Change In Many Countries Before

In 1957, the U.S. and British governments planned regime change in Syria … because it was drifting too close to the Soviet Union.

20 years ago, influential U.S. government officials decided to effect regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa.   The countries targeted were “old Soviet regimes”.

The U.S. has, of course, already carried out regime change in Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chile, Haiti and many other countries.  The U.S. was also instrumental in the recent regime change in Ukraine.

Soviet leader Gorbachev allowed the Soviet Union broken up only after the U.S. and NATO promised they would not encircle Russia militarily.  Ever since 1991, they have broken their promise and encircled Russia.

Is the U.S. Now Trying to Implement Regime Change In Russia?

New Republic writes:

There are now voices in Moscow saying that these sanctions are an attempt to force regime change in Russia.

Richard Becker – of the American anti-war group Answer Coalition – says:

Their (US and NATO) clear aim is to surround Russia, to weaken Russia in the long run [and] to bring about regime change in Russia…

DNA India argues:

Washington’s obvious plan is to get troublesome Putin out of the way. The expectation is that once Russians feel the crunch they will turn against the president.

***

Regime change has become the latest buzzword against rulers the West dislikes. It was Iraq’s Saddam Hussain at one time, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi at another time and now it is Russia’s Putin. The Russian leader may not be an easy prey.

Former Indian ambassador M.K.Bhadrakumar theorizes that it is Russia’s sheltering of Edward Snowden which is the motivation for the U.S. push for regime change in Russia:

The US is undoubtedly in a punishing mood. What accounts for it? Can’t be Syria. Can’t be Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Can’t be the Arctic, can’t be BRICS.

Yes, it has to be the unprecedented humiliation and damage caused to the US’ global standing and foreign and security policies by the Edward Snowden affair, which Washington believes was masterminded from the Kremlin. It’s payback time for the CIA.

Former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry wrote in April:

Now that the demonization of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is in full swing, one has to wonder when the neocons will unveil their plan for “regime change” in Moscow, despite the risks that overthrowing Putin and turning Russia into a super-sized version of Ukraine might entail for the survival of the planet.

There is a “little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly” quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme.

Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Russian government photo)

If the Palestinians and Lebanon’s Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with “regime change” – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your “regime change” in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

Just when you think you’ve cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear program.

So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.

When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you’ve succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin’s resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of “regime change.”

And a former high-level CIA official says that Putin has to go, and the U.S. should assassinate him if he doesn’t leave voluntarily.

But every country we’ve regime changed have descended into chaos.

As Robert Parry warns, we might be very sorry if we succeed in forcing Putin out:

But what would it mean to destabilize Russia? Does anyone think that shattering the Russian political structure through a combination of economic sanctions and information warfare will result in a smooth transition to some better future? The Russians already have tried the West’s “shock therapy” under drunken President Boris Yeltsin – and they saw the cruel ugliness of “free market” capitalism.

Putin’s autocratic nationalism was a response to the near-starvation levels of poverty that many Russians were forced into as they watched well-connected capitalists plunder the nation’s wealth and emerge as oligarchic billionaires. For all Putin’s faults, it was his pushback against some of those oligarchs and his defense of Russian interests internationally that secured him a solid political base.

In other words, even if the neocons get the Obama administration – and maybe its successor – to ratchet up tensions with Russia enough to generate sufficient political friction to drive Putin from office, the likely result would be a dangerously unstable Russia possessing a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. Putin loyalists are not likely to readily accept a replay of the Yeltsin years.

But the neocons apparently think the risks are well worth it. After all, the end result might finally let them kill off that pesky fly, Israel’s near-in threat from the Palestinians and Hezbollah. But we might remember what happened to the little old lady in the ditty, when she swallowed the horse, she was dead, of course.

Israeli Drone Downed in Iraq. Report

August 30th, 2014 by Global Research News

Lebanese TV channel Al-Mayadeen has said that an Israeli drone, similar to the one downed several days ago by Iran, has been downed in Baghdad.

Al-Mayadeen reported that sources said the reason behind the fall of the drone “are still unknown,” noting that the Iraqi army abstained from commenting on the incident.

According to the sources, the Iraqi army wanted to investigate the incident, but the American embassy in Baghdad interfered. A technical team arrived at the scene, collected the drone remains, and took them to the embassy.

[File photo] Al-Mayadeen reported that sources said the reason behind the fall of the drone 'are still unknown,' noting that the Iraqi army abstained from commenting on the incident.

[File photo] Al-Mayadeen reported that sources said the reason behind the fall of the drone ‘are still unknown,’ noting that the Iraqi army abstained from commenting on the incident.

Meanwhile, Iraqi forces killed 29 IS members in an operation to liberate Shamali villages. Sources from the Iraqi police said that 18 people, including IS members, were killed in different areas in the Saladin Governorate.

The mother of the American journalist kidnapped in Iraq, Steven Sotloff, broadcast a video appealing to the kidnappers of her son to release him.

Sotloff appeared in a video with IS members last week when they murdered his colleague James Foley. The IS members called for the US President Barak Obama to stop his operation, or they would murder Sotloff.

The German army said that a non-combatant unit started a mission in Erbil two days ago. The German government said that it will offer weapons to Kurdish forces so they can fight IS in the region.


Recently most of the attention has been on northern Iraq. But military action in western Iraq has been going on for months, after areas came under control of Sunni Muslim extremists and other anti-government groups. Some, like the city of Fallujah, have been under constant attack from the Iraqi government. NIQASH went there to find a city demolished, people without hope – and another potential uprising.

Getting into Fallujah is far from easy. One must pass through dozens of Iraqi army checkpoints followed by dozens of checkpoints manned by the gunmen who now control the city. Unless one is doing humanitarian work one cannot enter or exit. And if the humanitarian aid workers don’t leave the city again at a pre-specified time, they are regarded with suspicion and may be detained.

Additionally two months ago, the extremists who control the city gave an order that all journalists inside Fallujah must stop working. Any violations would be heavily punished, they said.

Tribal fighters in Fallujah earlier this year.

So anyone who enters now – whether they are coming for humanitarian purposes or to visit a relative – is put under close surveillance. Masked gunmen on the streets observe visitors’ activities and communicate visitors’ movements through a radio network. They want to be sure that anyone coming into the city is not a government spy or a journalist.

The main streets leading into Fallujah from the four major entrances to the city are booby trapped with explosive devices. These are arranged in a complicated and random fashion and nobody other than the gunmen who control the city knows where they all are. That means that nobody can enter Fallujah unless they are guided by one of the fighters.

Once inside the city, you quickly see how exhausted everybody looks. Locals’ faces reflect myriad untold, sad stories. Most have lost at least one family member during this siege. There are also plenty of serious injuries on display. Many locals have now joined the armed groups controlling the city out of a desire for revenge.

Many of the buildings are damaged or completely destroyed. Anyone who manages to get into Fallujah will see a city that looks as though it’s out of a picture taken just after World War II.

“Some areas – such as al-Hay al-Sinaie and Nazzal – have been completely levelled,” one of the city’s tribal leaders, Ahmed al-Halbusi, told NIQASH. “It would be almost impossible for people to go back and live in those areas again because they are so damaged. Additionally the Iraqi air force is still shelling those areas even though we have no idea why.”

Al-Halbusi was now looking after a five-year-old boy named Othman. “His whole family was killed in the Nazzal area,” al-Halbusi explains. “He was playing in his garden and his family were in the house when the house was hit. He was the only survivor.”

There are dozens of similar stories. The Iraqi army has been attacking Fallujah since the beginning of the year. Every day the army shells the city two different ways – with ground artillery from their camps near the city. One of the major camps is the nearby Mazra camp.

The people of Fallujah say that this method seems to be fairly ineffective and doesn’t cause a lot of damage. They are far more concerned about the second method the Iraqi army is using: air bombardment.

Military helicopters bomb the city too – some of these helicopters are old ones, dating back to Saddam Hussein’s army, and some are new Russian-made machines, received recently. The helicopters often use barrel bombs, locals say. When these land and don’t explode, they try to disarm them.

“We don’t want to hurt civilians,” says Karim al-Mamouri, a lieutenant in the Iraqi army who is supervising one of the units besieging Fallujah. “We only want to hurt the extremist groups who have been controlling this city for months now. We have coordinates about their whereabouts inside the city and that’s where we aim at.”

Obviously though, this plan doesn’t always work – there have been many civilian injuries and deaths in Fallujah. In an official statement dated August 18, 2014, Ahmad al-Shami, an administrator at Fallujah’s public hospital, wrote that an estimated 700 people have been killed in the city since the beginning of the year and around 2,200 wounded. “The general hospital has not been spared either,” he went on to say. “It has been bombed five times over the past few months.”

One thing the lieutenant is right about is that the Sunni Muslim extremist group known as the Islamic State, or IS, is in control of Fallujah now. The group forced all the other Sunni Muslim anti-government groups inside the city to hand over their weapons. In fact, a lot of the members of these factions chose to leave Fallujah rather than remain there at the IS group’s mercy.

For example, last Saturday gunmen from IS led a tour of the city, parading blindfolded prisoners from the Mujahedeen Army. This militia, which controls terrain north of Fallujah, had declared war on the IS group.

The number of IS fighters in Fallujah has also increased since anti-government forces first took over the city in January. At first there were an estimated 600 members of the IS group in Fallujah. Now there are approximately 2,000 as others from inside the city have joined and as fighters have arrived from neighbouring Syria.

The IS group has also cunningly used the feelings of resentment, frustration and desire for revenge that exist in Fallujah, particularly among local youths who have lost members of their families.

The Iraqi government estimates that before the city was lost, Fallujah had around half a million residents. Now almost three quarters of them have left the city.

“Those who stay here are living by luck alone,” says Karim al-Bajari, one of the residents who still remains. “We live as though we are playing hide and seek continuously. We hide when the shelling starts or when we hear planes.”

Even though the city is supposed to be under siege, al-Bajari says that the fighters have their own secret paths into northern parts of Baghdad. They bring food and medicine into the city along these; after all they are supposed to be responsible for the administration of the city.

The dead of Fallujah also have a story to tell. The only cemetery in Fallujah – the Al Shuhada, or Martyrs’, cemetery – is overcrowded. Some days the deceased are being buried together in mass graves, one of the cemetery workers told NIQASH.

“In one day, we were forced to bury four children in one grave,” the worker says. “Their body parts got mixed together. And slowly the cemetery is becoming way too crowded. We are even burying people on the pathways now.”

This has led to some Fallujah residents simply burying their dead at home, in their back yards. Those who live in the city’s most dangerous areas have been storing dead relatives in refrigerators until they can get out and find a piece of ground in which to bury them.

Fallujah has also stopped holding funerals. “We are not holding gatherings like that at the moment because these kinds of events are usually attended by dozens of people and that makes them an easy target for the military planes,” says Siddiq al-Tamimi, another tribal leader in Fallujah. “The Iraqi army thinks these are gatherings of militants.”

“The army has tried to enter Fallujah more than 70 times over the past eight months,” Abu Aesha al-Thiyabi, a leading member of one of the less radical militias inside Fallujah, told NIQASH. “But every attempt has failed. This is because of the strength of the tribal factions defending the city and the weak training of the Iraqi army, who usually turn and run away when confronted directly.”

“We are against the things that the IS group do,” al-Thiyabi added. “We don’t support their acts. But we do have a common enemy: the Iraqi army, who are trying to kill us all with any means available to them.”

Locals in Fallujah say that there have been a number of highly secret meetings in Fallujah over the past weeks, attended by tribal leaders and the heads of the various armed factions fighting in Fallujah.

Sources say that these meetings are being held with the aim of concocting a plan to expel the IS group from the city. The various tribal leaders and militia heads want to run the city themselves, but they want to do it in a non-extremist way.  However they also do not want to see the Iraqi army return and they only want local police to administer the city’s security.

An Open Letter to  The Executive Editor & Chief Leader Writer of The Times, London

Your recent article on antisemitism is the latest in a long line of comment condemning the alleged conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism but which, unfortunately, manages to completely avoid the obvious fact that the key driver of antisemitism, today, in both Britain and Europe is the policy agenda of the Netanyahu government of Israel.

The international community views with distaste, if not abhorrence, the policies that have illegally settled over half a million Israeli citizens on to occupied Palestinian land in gross violation of international law and in contempt of the will of the United Nations, plus the seven year old blockade of essential goods and services required by 1.82 million residents of Gaza – and the world makes a considered judgement upon the evidence it sees.

And that judgement is not only applicable to the government of Israel but also to those who indiscriminately support it, which includes AIPAC – the American Israel lobby group that has such substantiated influence over the US Congress that funds and arms the Netanyahu administration – plus also certain minority groups in Britain and Europe.

 These are the real reasons for the frightening rise in antisemitism in Europe and elsewhere that can now only be reversed by a paradigm shift in the Israeli government agenda and the attitude of the United States vis-à-vis the 4.55 million, indigenous people of the West Bank and Gaza.

And that includes, in addition to the extensive reconstruction of Gaza, urgent consideration for the planning of a deep-sea port on the Eastern Mediterranean and an international airport, to compete with those of Haifa and Tel Aviv, in Israel.   Only with an end to occupation will there be a sustainable peace and a reduction in animosity towards the State of Israel and those who support it.

 Yours etc

ANTHONY BELLCHAMBERS

America Has Sold Its Soul for Oil

Why Does the U.S. Support a Country which was FOUNDED With Terrorism

A U.S. congressman for 6 years,  who is now a talking head on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:

 

This is not an isolated incident. It is a microcosm of U.S.-Saudi relations.

http://my2bucks.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/bush-saudi-hand-holding-1.jpghttp://i.huffpost.com/gen/7992/thumbs/s-BUSHANDSAUDIS-large.jpghttp://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/10457/FE_DA_090409publicopinion.jpg

 

By way of background, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke notes that Saudi Arabia was founded with terrorism:

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

***

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

***

Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

***

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants …”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

***

With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.

***

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

***

The more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS?

Frontline notes:

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism,” an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.

***

By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact: The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.

U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.

The Progressive notes:

The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.

***

Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”

But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream, President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.

“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,” British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year. “The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch. Then the United States comes in repeatedly to attack symptoms of this problem without ever addressing the basic issue: Where does it all come from? Who’s at the heart of this thing? It would be like saying that if you have skin rash because of cancer, the best option is to cut off your skin. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Yet, the United States continues with this approach.

Even establishment opinion is recognizing the dimensions of the Saudi problem.

“It can’t be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United States to protect it,” Retired General (and onetime presidential contender) Wesley Clark recently told CNN.

“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”

Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.

***

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

***

Yet the United States keeps mum because the Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras.

***

Until Saudi Arabia stops sponsoring the most reactionary brands of Sunni Islam, this U.S. ally will remain responsible for much of the mayhem in the Muslim world.

The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

***

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

***

Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

***

Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.

***

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”

***

Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.

***

For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

***

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.

As we’ve extensively documented, the Saudis and the U.S. backed the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

Indeed, the U.S. is backing the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis, who are heavily concentrated in Saudi Arabia, while overthrowing the more moderate Arabs.

“The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia. Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing, but it’s not really a shift.”Obama, 29 August 2014.

 ”If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”  -  Joseph Goebbels (Hitler’s Propaganda Minister)

Interestingly, most of us who are seeking the truth are primarily attempting to undo the lies – lies umpteen times repeated, lies about “Russian invasions”, first proclaimed by Poroshenko, Ukraine’s oligarch leader (sic), lies of Russia “not respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty”, demonization directed against President Putin, Malaysian airliners downed by Russia – and-so-on.

The latest accusation is that JP Morgan and four other Wall Street banks have been hacked. And the culprit is…. Of, course Russia, according to the presstitute MSM.

It doesn’t matter whether what Poroshenko said and is repeated the world over was based on a translation error (according to the German Tagesschau, the German mainstream TV news) – or whether it is just a conventional lie continuously repeated until it becomes the truth à la Goebbels – the western bought propaganda machine takes full advantage of this hundreds of years old simple strategy of deception.

The interesting part, however, is that hardly anyone on that very occasion is presenting the counter-weight, so to speak, namely to what extent Kiev is assisted by US paid mercenaries, CIA military and strategic advisers and their equipment, all paid for in one way or another by the State Department, CIA, or NATO. And these are facts. Not inventions for deception.

There is enough proof about who caused the 22 February 2014 coup (Maidan) – Madame Nuland, Kerry’s assistant, bragged about it at the Washington Press club – remember the US$ 5 billion “investment” in Ukraine’s regime change that cannot be let go down the drain because of the f….ing Europeans. She was caught hot-handed or hot-voiced on the phone with the US Ambassador in Kiev.

 Ever since that infamous coup, the US / NATO and the EU have had their dirty hands in Kiev’s Nazi killer junta – otherwise the Kiev thugs would have never had either the courage or the military knowledge to advance to the Donbas area of Ukraine, where they were literally ordered to kill their brothers. Some of them with some conscience defected early on; then they were accompanied under threats of life by CIA ‘advisers’. Eventually they defected by the thousands because of lack of food and ammunition and the resulting low-low morale.

 It is actually irrelevant whether Russia has troops and armory in East Ukraine. In fact it would be well justified for Russia to defend her countrymen from savage slaughter, as many Donbas citizens are originally Russians. But – they don’t, as Mr. Putin is too smart to spoil his diplomatic assets on a war that is already lost by Kiev.

Be this as it may, why do we, truth seekers, at a time of Obama’s lie exclamations and countless media repetitions not present more frequently the US / NATO invasion in Ukraine and their assistance to the Kiev murderers, rather than always being on the defensive, undoing lies in defense of Russia?

The truth of what the US-NATO killing machine, its vassal EU states and its paid mercenaries are up to in Ukraine, and that they won’t let go regardless of what Obama mutters to tranquilize the world — the truth is in one way or another Washington is committed to its financial and corporate elite to achieve  Full Spectrum Dominance, meaning complete subjugation of the world to Washington’s masters, the military-security industrial complex and the war financing monetary system – FED-Wall Street-IMF, the latter being a mere extension of the US Treasury.

The Endgame means encircling Russia and China with more NATO bases, including Ukraine and Moldova, as close as possible to Moscow’s doorsteps; and, foreseen by 2015, with 60% of the US naval fleet in the South China Sea.

We should not be detracted by the day-to-day details and lies, by the fires that flare up here and there, though all horrible, killing thousands of people; we should not be confused by ‘who is doing what?’ – But rather focus on the Big Picture, the intentions behind the US / NATO killing machine, not so much by denying the obvious lies, but rather by describing actual facts and the long-term strategy behind them.

Obama screamed again ‘wolf’ today, literally shouting – ‘Russia has invaded Ukraine, Russia’s military and equipment are in Ukraine, Russia is funding the separatists’ — then adds, ‘but it’s not in the cards for America to intervene now.’

Don’t be fooled. Obama and his masters won’t go away.  He says the same about American intervention in Syria – it’s not the right time, while arming and bombing (as a disguise) at the same time ISIS, created and funded in 2007 by Washington under successively different names to further confuse the public at large. At that time they came out of Turkey as Syrian Freedom Fighters, later they converted into the Al’Nusra Front of rebels, and now they are the ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also called the Islamic State of the Levant.

 This will do until the public needs to be again confused with a new group of Islamic terrorists to justify continuous wars on terror – to feed continuously the fat profit accounts of the eternal war lords. But only, if we the people let them confuse and deceive and divide us.

At the same time, Washington’s warmonger-in-chief, encourages his EU puppets to intervene and sending their troops into Ukraine, and imposing still more ‘sanctions’ on Russia. Let Europe take the hit if there is war. Not for nothing are NATO bases spiked throughout Europe, convenient targets for Russian missiles. – One could wonder – are the Europeans blind or just don’t care – or their leaders (sic) bought to the point where they hope to just disappear to America’s paradise when Russian rockets hit their countries’ NATO bases – and let their people smolder under nuclear dust?

 We the 99.99% have all the powers to stop these US instigated murderous aggressions, by rejecting the continuously lying and deceiving propaganda machine, by rejecting and refusing to listen to the corporate presstitute media.

A few weeks ago there was hope that German Chancellor Merkel would see the light, would abandon the bandwagon of the ‘sanctioners’, because not only did she get a lot of pressure from German industrialists, but also the German people are worried about their energy supply – especially this coming winter. Germany depends by up to 40% on Russia for their energy supplies.

 Unfortunately we were wrong. Madame Merkel bent over backwards to please Obama. The naked emperor convinced her not to leave his sinking ship. – What does he have up his imaginary sleeve? Anything he may have discovered by eavesdropping on her cellphone conversations? – So strong to sway her away from reason to the detriment of all of Europe?  –  These latest sanctions are backlashing on the EU, especially the farmers, a multiple times harder than they hit Russia. European agriculture and mostly small farmers, are losing billions of euros worth on stalled exports to Russia of meat, vegetables, fruit and other food stuff, because Russia retaliated by blocking imports from the EU. Russia is now establishing new trade routes with Latin America.

 On 18 September Obama will meet at the White House with Poroshenko, to be sure he stays in line and doesn’t sway Putin’s way, because corrupt oligarchs tend to be not very reliable. Obama may promise him premature entry to NATO and all the fake fiat dollars that come with it.

 It would not be a surprise if Obama were also to receive Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the ‘new’ ISIS caliphate, to assure him of America’s continuous support, if he lets him bomb them, the ISIS troops that is, ever so often, just for show and to confuse the public mind – and, of course, as a disguise to bomb Syria to eventually topple Baschar al-Assad for – regime change.

 Obama may also promise the ISIS a key role in the new Syrian government – provided he succeeds in regime change (for now unlikely) – similar as he did to the ‘rebels’ and other Islamic fractions of Libya. What Obama needs are not well-organized new regimes, but civil wars, fighting sections of societies to keep populations dying, and those still alive on their toes, fighting for their daily survival and fleeing across borders into refugee camps of other lands, thereby swallowing up neighboring countries resources and creating anger in the local population – the old divide to rein tactic.

The Big Picture is important. The people need to see it, the End Game – what is expecting them, if they – we, the 99.99% – are not taking actions to prevent Full Spectrum Dominance from succeeding.

 Peter Koenig is an economist and former World Bank staff. He worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research,  ICH, the Voice of Russia and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

by Gaza Ministry of Health

 

 

compiled by Cem Ertür

The front pages below from August 2013 constitute a vivid example of the relentless and utterly deceptive war propaganda against Syria.

Now, with utmost impunity, the perpetrators of the genocidal war on Syria are declaring their plan to bombard Syrian territory under the guise of “collaborating” with the Syrian government against the “terrorists” who, in reality, are NATO’s mercenary death squads.

The Economist, 31 August 2013

Sunday Herald, 1 September 2013

Libération, 31 August 2013

France United-States: The Axis of War

Despite Britain’s defection, Paris and Washington are determined to strike the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.



Wall Street Journal, 30 August 2013

Hürriyet Daily News, 29 August 2013

Note: Hürriyet Daily News is the English-language edition of Turkish newspaper Hürriyet

Daily News, 29 August 2013

New York Post, 29 August 2013

Daily News, 28 August 2013



Daily Mirror, 28 August 2013

London Evening Standard, 27 August 2013



Daily Telegraph, 26 August 2013



Daily Mirror, 26 August 2013

From the archives:

Morally bankrupt Turkish media counts down for war on Syria

by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 29 August 2013

Read the London tabloids. Russia has launched “a full-scale invasion”. A vast propaganda campaign has been launched. Where is the evidence?

The media is spreading “fake evidence” in the week leading up to the Wales NATO Summit.

The objective is to herald Russia as the aggressor.

What is at stake is a strategic public relations stunt.

Sixty countries will be represented at the NATO Summit in Wales on 4-5 September including the 28 NATO member states.

NATO Summit Wales 2014The media lies “fit the military agenda” already formulated by the Pentagon in consultation with NATO and Her Majesty’s Government.

US-NATO requires “evidence” to build a political consensus at the Wales NATO Summit on September 4-5 hosted by Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron. According to PM David Cameron in a letter addressed to heads of State and heads of government of NATO member states ahead of the Summit:

“Leaders [of NATO countries] must review NATO’s long term relationship with Russia at the summit in response to Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine.

“And the PM wants to use the summit to agree on how NATO will sustain a robust presence in Eastern Europe in the coming months to provide reassurance to allies there, building on work already underway in NATO.” (See PM writes to NATO leaders ahead of NATO Summit Wales 2014)

A pretext for an all out war on Russia under a humanitarian cloak?  The West coming to the rescue of civilians in Eastern Ukraine?

In late July in consultation with the Pentagon, NATO’s Europe commander General Philip Breedlove had (ahead of  the Wales NATO meeting) already called for “stockpiling a base in Poland with enough weapons, ammunition and other supplies to support a rapid deployment of thousands of troops against Russia”.(RT, July 24, 2014). According to General Breedlove, NATO needs “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept follow-on forces”:

“He plans to recommend placing supplies — weapons, ammunition and ration packs — at the headquarters to enable a sudden influx of thousands of Nato troops” (Times, August 22, 2014, emphasis added)

Breedlove’s “Blitzkrieg scenario” which could escalate into a World War III scenario is part of NATO’s summit agenda in Wales next week. In substance it is a “copy and paste” of the draft Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) (in the US Senate) which directs President Obama to initiate the militarization of Eastern Europe with a view to confronting Russia.

The Convoy of Russian Tanks. Where is It?

In support of NATO’s planned deployments to Eastern Europe, the Western media is claiming without evidence that a large convoy of Russian tanks has crossed the border into Ukraine and are operating under Russian command inside Ukraine.

The satellite images released by NATO show tanks and vehicles inside Ukraine, within an area controlled by Donbass forces. Where did they come from?

Ironically, these images are not from advanced US-NATO military satellite sources, they are from a digital commercial company operating on the internet. www.DigitalGlobe.com “a leading global provider of high-resolution earth imagery”.

While the Atlantic Alliance has access to advanced military and intelligence imagery, it takes the trouble of identyfing its source:  [Image #1 provided by Digital Globe]

While media reports (with extensive photographic evidence). confirmed the  entry into Ukraine of  a convoy of Russian “white vans” which were part of Russia’s humanitarian initiative, nobody actually saw the tanks entering Ukraine.

With regard to the NATO satellite images, there is no indication as to where these tanks and armored vehicles came from and whether they were operated by the Russian military.

The Daily Mail online featured an unconvincing 20 second video of an alleged Russian tank inside Ukraine (see still image above).

 

Spinning a Russian Invasion

This is not the first time that the media is spinning a “Russian Invasion”.  Earlier reports in June alluded to State Department sources that:

“three aging Russian T-64 tanks had been sent to Ukraine,” and that the Ukrainian government was claiming that there were 10 more tanks. The Times also noted:

Adding to Western concerns, the senior Obama administration official said, artillery has been moved to a deployment site inside southwest Russia and may soon be shipped across the border.

Not only are the anonymous claims of one official the source of the information–they also provide the analysis of that information, floating a slightly-too-perfect theory that Russia is handing over old equipment in order to make it seem like they’re not actually doing so (Peter Hart, Ukraine Tips From Nameless US Officials: Good Enough for the New York Times,  Global Research, June 27, 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-tips-from-nameless-us-officials-good-enough-for-the-new-york-times/5388916

It should be noted that this as well as previous “Russian invasions” have been the object of sizable speculative gains on financial markets.

Where are the alleged Russian Tanks?

While various explanations are put forth concerning the alleged Russian tanks and armored vehicles, what is never mentioned in Western media reports is that the Donbass militia do not need Russian tanks.

According to the NATO communique:

“large quantities of advanced weapons, including air defence systems, artillery, tanks, and armoured personnel carriers [are] being transferred to separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine,”

Yet the evidence confirms that in  the course of the last two months, the Donbass militia have acquired a significant arsenal of tanks and armored vehicles captured from Ukrainian forces.

Separatist rebels operate a tank in eastern Ukraine (Rob Stothard/Getty Images)

Rebels operate a tank in eastern Ukraine (Rob Stothard/Getty Images)

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/15/6006281/russia-ukraine-war-what-we-know

The large loss of military equipment is confirmed by the Ukraine Ministry of Internal Affairs, either destroyed or captured by Donbass forces.

Official Ukraine sources acknowledge a significant loss of  tanks and armored vehicles.

Based solely on a two week period in July, 35 Ukraine Army tanks and 96 Armoured Battle Vehicles were either confiscated or destroyed by Donetsk and Lugansk forces, according to an official brief  signed by Arsen Avakov (Minister of Internal Affairs) and V. Gritsak (Head of ATO [Anti-Terrorism Operation])

  1. Tanks: 35
  2. Armoured Battle Vehicles: 96
  3. Artillery: 38
  4. Aircraft: 7
  5. Helicopters: 2
  6. Automobiles: 104

While the above figures do not distinguish between  confiscated and destroyed military equipment, Cyberberkut, provides the following data based on leaked official information. 

According to Cyberberkut: some 65 tanks and 69 armoured battle vehicles and other military hardware (See list below) were captured by the Donbass militia over a period of less than 2 months (from June 20 to August 15).

tanks T-64 – 65 units;

infantry fighting vehicles (BMP) – 69 units;

armored personnel carriers (BTR) – 39 units;

combat reconnaissance patrol vehicles (BRDM) – 2 units;

airborne combat vehicles (BMD) – 9 units;

multiple artillery rocket systems (RSZO)  BM27 Uragan – 2 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S4 “Tyulpan” – 2 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S9 “Nona” – 6 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S1 “Gvozdika” – 25 units;

howitzers D-30 – 10 units; 82 mm. caliber mortars – 32 units;

anti-aircraft mounts ZU-23-2 – 18 units; wheeled vehicles – 124 units.

While we are not in a position to fully corroborate the Cyberberkut report (based on leaked official documents), the figures collected over the period of June 20 to August 15 are broadly consistent with the official release.

What these two sets of figures confirm is that rebel forces in Donesk and Lugansk possess a significant military arsenal and this arsenal did not originate  from Russia.  It was captured from Ukraine forces as confirmed by official Ukraine sources.

This information is of crucial significance because it refutes the accusations by Washington and NATO that the tanks and armored vehicles identified in Donbass came from Russia. With the exception of some 1000 Russian volunteers under Donbass military command, there is no evidence of Russian forces inside Ukraine.

Moreover, it should be noted that entire Ukrainian battalions have surrendered to the Donetsk and Lugansk militia; a large number of Ukrainian soldiers who have abandoned the battlefield have fled to Russia or have joined the Donbass militia:

“The 72nd Brigade for all intents and purposes has ceased to exist [in early August] due to ammunition and food rations running out. They held on while they still had resources and then began to exit into the territory of the Russian Federation – at first in separate groups, followed by the surviving remnants of the once full-fledged brigade.

The hardware was all abandoned at their positions, which continue to be controlled by Junta troops that have not yet surrendered. When militiamen would drive up on tanks as close as 400 metres away from the positions of the Junta, there was no return fire – there is simply nothing to fire back with. Some of the soldiers of the 72ndBrigade had no rounds left during the surrender; others had 1-2 magazines per automatic rifle. (Entire Ukraine Military Brigade Abandons the Battlefield and Surrenders to Donbass Militia, The Surrender of the 72nd Brigade, Global Research, August 4, 2014)

More generally, the Western media has failed to cover the war theater in Donbass. More than 2000 civilians have been killed as a result of shelling and bombing by Kiev forces, close to a million Ukrainians are refugees in Russia.

The humanitarian crisis is invariably not mentioned by the media and when it is, the blame is placed on Russia.

BuMtBF6IQAAPmQi.png-large

Entire battalions of the Ukraine forces have surrendered.

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-handed-military-equipment-to-militia-forces-once-again/5396869

http://www.globalresearch.ca/media-blackout-major-military-operation-in-east-ukraine-1600-soldiers-reported-killed/5392193


Annex I

July 18, 2014 – Official Ukrainian Military Accounting of Losses for July 9-15, 2014


((1) Ukrainian Version; (2) Translation)BREAKING!

TOTAL UKRAINIAN LOSSES

  1. Killed in Action: 1600
  2. Wounded in Action: 4723
  3. Tanks: 35
  4. Armoured Battle Vehicles: 96
  5. Artillery: 38
  6. Aircraft: 7
  7. Helicopters: 2
  8. Automobiles: 104

TOTAL MILITIA LOSSES

  1. Killed in Action: 48
  2. Wounded in Action: 64
  3. Tanks: 2
  4. Armoured Battle Vehicles: 0
  5. Artillery: 5
  6. Automobiles: 8

TOTAL CIVILIAN LOSSES

  1. Killed: 496
  2. Wounded: 762

SIGNED & SUBMITTED BY: Arsen Avakov (Minister of Internal Affairs) and V. Gritsak (Head of ATO)


Annex II Cyberberkut Report (Translated from Russian)

Having access to classified information of Ukrainian security services, we are able to confirm that the fratricidal war led by the Kiev regime is from a military standpoint in an impasse. The Kiev forces have experienced significant losses.

From the new documents, we are able to confirm that from 8 to 15th of August, the Army of the Southeast has captured:

tanks T-64 – 18 units;

infantry fighting vehicles (BMP) – 24 units;

armored personnel carriers (BTR) – 11 units;

combat reconnaissance patrol vehicles (BRDM) – 2 units; airborne combat vehicles (BMD) – 9 units;

multiple artillery rocket systems (RSZO) BM27 “Uragan” – 2 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S4 “Tyulpan” – 2 units; self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S9 “Nona” – 2 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S1 “Gvozdika” – 10 units;  82 mm. caliber mortars – 6 units;

anti-aircraft mounts ZU-23-2 – 3 units; wheeled vehicles – 44 units.

In total, from June 20 to August 15 during the punitive action, according to the reports of the Ukrainian military, the militia forces captured:

tanks T-64 – 65 units; infantry fighting vehicles (BMP) – 69 units;

armored personnel carriers (BTR) – 39 units;

combat reconnaissance patrol vehicles (BRDM) – 2 units;

airborne combat vehicles (BMD) – 9 units;

multiple artillery rocket systems (RSZO)  BM27 Uragan – 2 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S4 “Tyulpan” – 2 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S9 “Nona” – 6 units;

self-propelled guns (SAU) 2S1 “Gvozdika” – 25 units;

howitzers D-30 – 10 units; 82 mm. caliber mortars – 32 units; anti-aircraft mounts ZU-23-2 – 18 units; wheeled vehicles – 124 units.

References

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ukraine-civil-war-latest-developments/5394563

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-handed-military-equipment-to-militia-forces-once-again/5396869

http://www.globalresearch.ca/media-blackout-major-military-operation-in-east-ukraine-1600-soldiers-reported-killed/5392193

Claims about Russia invading Ukraine are fabricated. Big Lies  proliferate. On Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki lied saying

“we’re seeing…a pattern of escalating aggression in Ukraine from the Russians and Russian-backed separatists.”

“And it’s clear that Russia has not only stepped up its presence in eastern Ukraine and intervened directly with combat forces –  armored vehicles, artillery, and surface-to-air systems – and is actively fighting Ukrainian forces as well as playing a direct supporting role to the separatist proxies and mercenaries.”

The White House is considering a range of options, she said. “We have additional tools and sanctions that we could certainly choose to put in place.”

US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, repeated the Big Lie. His Twitter messages falsely claim “an increasing number of Russian troops are intervening directly in fighting on Ukrainian territory.”

Russia sent its newest air defense systems, he claims. At an August 28 emergency Security Council meeting, US envoy Samantha Power lied saying:

“Instead of listening, instead of heeding the demands of the international community and the rules of the international order, at every step, Russia has come before this Council to say everything except the truth.”

“It has manipulated. It has obfuscated. It has outright lied. So we have learned to measure Russia by its actions and not by its words.”

On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov debunked spurious invasion claims,” saying:

“It’s not the first time we’ve heard wild guesses, though facts have never been presented so far.”

“There have been reports about satellite imagery exposing Russian troop movements.”

“They turned out to be images from video games. The latest accusations happen to be much the same quality.”

“We’ll react by remaining persistent in our policies to stay bloodshed and give a start to the nationwide dialogue and negotiations about the future of Ukraine, with participation of all Ukrainian regions and political forces, something that was agreed upon in Geneva back in April and in Berlin (in August), yet what is being so deliberately evaded by our Western partners now.”

On Friday, Vladimir Putin noted clear self-defense forces success against Kiev’s military.

At the same time, Donbass area fighting poses a “grave danger” to beleaguered residents, he said.

He and Lavrov deplore war. They’ve all-out for peaceful conflict resolution since fighting erupted in April.

“(O)nce again (he) call(ed) on the Ukrainian authorities to immediately stop military actions, cease fire, sit down at the negotiating table with Donbass representatives, and resolve all the accumulated problems exclusively via peaceful means.”

Moscow’s envoy Vitaly Churkin accused Kiev of waging war on its own people.

“Ukrainian forces in defiance of all norms of international humanitarian law and just moral principles are indiscriminately attacking cities, residential areas and infrastructures,” he explained.

His comments came on the same day Kiev forces attacked four buses of refugees seeking refuge in Russia. Its dirty war shows no mercy.

The New York Times is America’s lead source of media misinformation and propaganda.

On Thursday, it headlined “Ukraine Leader Says ‘Huge Loads of Arms’ Pour in From Russia,” saying:

“…Russian forces are on the move in Eastern Ukraine…” Its president, Petro Poroshenko, accused Russia “of an invasion to aid the separatists.”

“(H)is national security council ordered mandatory conscription to help counter what he called an ‘extremely difficult’ threat.”

Poroshenko lied claiming

“Columns of heavy artillery, huge loads of arms and regular Russian servicemen (invaded) Ukraine from Russia through the uncontrolled border area.”

“Mercenaries, along with regular servicemen, (are) trying to overrun positions held by the Ukrainian military.”

So-called NATO satellite images were cited as proof. Its web site claimed they show “Russian combat troops inside Ukraine.”

Comprehensive Crisis and Operations Management Centre director Brigadier General Nico Tak lied claiming:

“Over the past two weeks we have noted a significant escalation in both the level and sophistication of Russia’s military interference in Ukraine.”

“The satellite images released today provide additional evidence that Russian combat soldiers, equipped with sophisticated heavy weaponry, are operating inside Ukraine’s sovereign territory.”

Fact: No Russian invasion occurred.

Fact: Claims otherwise are fake.

Fact: MSM regurgitate official Big Lies.

Fact: Commercial satellite operator DigitalGlobe provided the satellite images.

Fact: Both sides use Russian weapons.

Fact: Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko said around three to four thousand Russian volunteers are aiding self-defense forces.

Fact: Many are retired Russian servicemen, he said.

Fact: Others on active duty used leave time to help “us struggle for our freedom.”

Fact: Moscow didn’t send them.

Fact: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Ukrainian monitoring team and Russia’s representative said no Russian forces are present on Ukraine’s border.

Fact: Claims of a Russian invasion are false, they said.

Russia’s Defense Ministry exposed a Forgotten Regiment (FR) Russian veterans organization hoax about Russian units involved in Southeast Ukraine fighting.

According to Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov, FR claims have “no relation to reality.”

“We have studied the contents of this hoax, and are obliged to disappoint its overseas authors and their few sympathizers in Russia, who have joined forces to publish their ‘revelation…’ ”

The “combat ready” infantry, artillery, paratrooper and reconnaissance exist. They’re engaged in routine training exercises in different parts of Russia.

They’re not involved in Southeastern Ukraine conflict. Claims otherwise are spurious.

According to Moscow’s permanent EU representative Vladimir Chizhov:

NATO, Washington and EU states presented no evidence of Russian military involvement in Ukraine.

Misinformation substitutes for hard truths. Often it’s disseminated ahead of important EU meetings.

This time it precedes an August 30 Brussels summit. Expect more sanctions to follow. Expect Russia to respond in kind.

Washington Post editors are militantly anti-Russian. On August 28, they headlined “The West must make Mr. Putin pay for his aggression.”

They lied claiming Putin

“sen(t) Russian forces openly into Ukraine in the past 48 hours.” They called doing so “a watershed…”

“If Mr. Putin does not pay a high price for this naked, if still cynically denied, attack on his neighbor, the precedent could sow instability (from) the Baltic Sea…to the South China Sea…, they said.”

Despite no evidence whatever of Russian revanchist aims, they accused Putin of wanting control over Southeastern Ukraine.

“(T)he United States and its allies cannot afford to let Mr. Putin break the rules. It is time to hit Russia with the full brunt of financial sanctions” and much more, they said.

They want Ukraine provided with arms and intelligence. They want military related sales to Russia halted. They want NATO strengthened.

They ludicrously claimed nations worldwide “rely on US leadership and its commitment to the rule of law…”

No country more systematically violates it. None more egregiously. None poses a greater threat to humanity.

Don’t expect WaPo editors to explain. Or their Wall Street Journal counterparts. On August 28, they headlined “Putin Marches Ahead.”

The joined with other MSM scoundrels claiming Russia invaded Ukraine. In February, they accused Moscow of “grabbing Crimea.”

They ignored near Crimean unanimity to join Russia. They now accused Russian forces of “firing artillery at Ukrainian positions from both (their own) territory and inside Ukraine.”

They claim Putin’s strategy is “to open a land bridge between Russia and Crimea.” He wants its economy “knit more closely to Russia’s,” they said.

“(E)scalation…open(ed) up another front for the Ukrainian military as it tries to regain control over the east.”

“Kiev forces will now have to fight on a third front against Russian soldiers and armor.”

Journal editors want a “serious response to this serious challenge to Europe’s political order…” They barely stopped short of urging Obama to declare war.

The risk of direct US-led NATO confrontation grows. Doing so belligerently is madness.

It risks the unthinkable. It risks potential global war. Deescalating crisis conditions matters most.

Washington’s imperial agenda undermines it. The worst of all possible outcomes may follow.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

The upcoming NATO summit in Wales is a public relations stunt aimed at building a political consensus directed against Russia and to accuse the country of interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs, according to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

“The fact that Russia is not invited to the NATO summit indicates that the meeting is directed against Russia, and that’s the main objective of that meeting,” Chossudovsky told RIA Novosti.

“It’s not to say that the meeting involves any kind of military planning. The military planning will take place elsewhere. The purpose of that meeting is strictly public relations,” he added.

Chossudovsky argued that many NATO members are the US’ political puppets, blindly following Washington’s strategies. 

“It’s there to twist the arms of the heads of state, heads of government from these 60 countries. Many of these leaders already are pro-US. That’s a consensus of politicians, many of whom are political puppets,” Chossudovsky asserted, adding that consensus among members is usually achieved through various forms of blackmail.

Chossudovsky expressed doubt about NATO’s willingness to solve the Ukrainian conflict in a diplomatic way and stressed that if NATO were committed to a peaceful solution in Ukraine, it would indeed invite Russia to the summit.

“That would be dialogue,” he said.

“However, they’ve lost the type of diplomacy which existed during the Cold War era, when there was a civilized East-West relationship between heads of state, polite and constructive in many cases. And now we have only people who have very little ability to actually negotiate,” he added.

This week’s meetings between the Russian president and his Ukrainian counterpart Chossudovsky considers as an another example of weak diplomacy and poor negotiations.

“While Poroshenko wants to have bilateral discussions with Russia regarding east Ukraine, he does not want to negotiate with the federalists,” the expert explained, underlining that Putin insisted that any solution to the crisis in east Ukraine has to be negotiated among the parties concerned.

Chossudovsky believes that Poroshenko’s discussions with Putin were carefully prepared in advance with Western advisers.

“Poroshenko does not make any decisions, but at the same time he is complicit in extensive war crimes committed against the people of southeast Ukraine,” he asserted.

“I have to underscore the fact that the Ukrainian government is not a legitimate government, Moreover, it does not decide on anything. Mr. Poroshenko is a puppet of the United States,” Chossudovsky concluded.

NATO members are scheduled to meet next week in Wales to discuss the alliance’s response to Russia, which it accuses of interfering in Ukrainian affairs.

The summit will focus on “the evolution of partnerships” of NATO with nonmembers and on the “narrative for the Post-2014 era” of the relevance of NATO’s existence in the post-Cold War period and its future after US troops withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of the year.

The leaders of some 60 countries are expected to attend the summit.

Russia insists on the immediate release of staff members of the Russian embassy in Kiev, detained on August 28, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

“We urge to stop provocations against Russian diplomatic institutions in Ukraine and our diplomatic staff members,” the ministry said.

According to the ministry, “another revolting action against the Russian embassy security guards, including the personal guard of the ambassador,” was staged in Kiev on August 28. They were detained at the exit of a cafe under an openly manufactured pretext of having grenades, despite the fact that they produced diplomatic passports.

“We demand the immediate release of the embassy staff members and prevention of any future violations of international conventions on diplomatic immunity,” the ministry said.

Russia urges the Ukrainian parties and Western partners to show goodwill towards solving problems exclusively by peaceful means, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

“This is the only way whether the West really advocates for the interests of obedient Ukrainian politicians, the Ukrainian multinational people and the Ukrainian state the future of which can and should be ensured by searching for nationwide accord,”the ministry said.

“Russia will consistently do its best to create conditions for resolving the crisis in negotiations through strengthening confidence-building measures between the conflicting parties and taking concrete measures to de-escalate the situation and assist to civilians,” the ministry said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has compared the shelling of east Ukrainian towns and cities by Kiev’s troops to actions carried out by the Nazis during World War II.

“Sad as it might seem, this reminds me of the events of World War II, when the German Nazi occupants surrounded our cities, like Leningrad, and directly shelled those cities and their inhabitants,” Putin said on Friday, speaking at the “Seliger-2014” youth forum.

He recalled the signs in St. Petersburg, preserved since World War II, which warned citizens which side of the road was more vulnerable to shelling.

Now “both towns and cities are surrounded by the Ukrainian army, which is directly shelling residential areas with the purpose of destroying infrastructure, and suppressing the will of those in the resistance,” Putin said.

The president also commented on Kiev’s military units that are currently surrounded and blocked by anti-government militia. According to the latest data, Kiev has refused to try and negotiate safe passage for them to retreat.

“I think this is a colossal mistake that will lead to a lot of human casualties,” Putin said.

The Ukrainian leadership has demonstrated its inability to bring the situation under control, the Russian president said, urging talks between Kiev and the country’s east.

“Our partners’ position is clear to me,” he said. “Yes, there should be talks, but in the mean time we need to let Ukrainian troops to do a bit of shooting – maybe they will get the situation under control.”

Putin added that it was time to acknowledge that attempts to resolve the crisis by force have failed and it is “necessary to make Ukrainian authorities to begin negotiation and not over technical issues… but over the core issues.”

The main topic on the agenda should be the rights of the people living in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the Russian president said.

Putin said he understood why the leadership of the self-proclaimed Donetsk Republic described their military actions against Kiev troops as a “humanitarian operation.”

“I can quite understand the self-defense forces of the southeast – Donbass, Lugansk – why they call this a military-humanitarian operation, what’s the point in their today’s actions – to drive artillery and cascade bombing systems away from the cities, so that they could do no harm to people,”

Putin said.

An average of around 36 people are being killed every day in Ukraine, according to estimates from the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.

The agency’s Friday report says around 2,600 people – many of them civilians – have died in eastern Ukraine since the start of the Kiev’s military operation against anti-government forces there started in mid-April.

The Ukrainian Security Council estimates 789 Ukrainian servicemen are among those dead in the conflict.

On Friday the Council’s spokesman said that only over the preceding 24 hours 10 Ukrainian servicemen were killed and 30 injured.

An American political commentator says there are hundreds of US troops or CIA agents with the ISIL in Iraq and Syria to help the terrorist group.  

Don DeBar, an anti-war activist and radio host in New York, made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday while commenting on a recent report which says there are as many as 300 American nationals fighting alongside ISIL members.

Senior US officials have told The Washington Times that the US government is currently tracking and gathering intelligence on American militants who could return to the homeland and commit terrorist attacks with skills obtained abroad.

DeBar said the ISIL

“group is a construct of the US military intelligence. This is a terrorist cell that was organized by the US in order to destabilize Syria and perhaps other countries – they even made a threat against Saudi Arabia whether that’s just to make them look like they are on a particular ideological plane, or if it’s an actual threat, it’s a proxy threat from the US to Saudi Arabia.”

“My belief is that there are Americans that are a part of ISIL/ISIS with the knowledge of the US government and an assignment by the US government,”

he added.

DeBar stated that there are perhaps 300 Americans fighting with ISIL

“and then hundreds more US regulars, with CIA or whatever military formation they have, under the direction of US intelligence, that are a part of this. It doesn’t require that they are American nationals, of course, just that their paycheck is signed in Washington or Langley.”

“If you look at the outcomes of every action that this group has taken, they facilitate actions that the United States has wanted to take, has declared that it wanted to take a number of times, or has taken when it could, but it can’t get the authority from the [UN] Security Council to approve because they violate the integrity and sovereignty of either Iraq and/or Syria, and also would enable actions that violate a resolution that just passed the House of Representatives massively, last week or the week before, that attempt to constrains, at least on paper, the president from making anymore wars without specific authority from Congress,”

he noted.

“So, it’s no surprise for me that there are Americans in their units. There would be a surprise to me if they were all dupes and unemployed kids, who got duped, sucked into fight over there with a bunch of the crazies. It wouldn’t surprise me if you had good portion of units, including command and control, that would direct employees of the Pentagon and/or Langley,”

DeBar concluded.

ISIL controls large parts of Syria’s northern territory. The group sent its fighters into neighboring Iraq in June, quickly seizing large swaths of land straddling the border between the two countries.

The US military has begun planning for airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria after last week’s beheading of American journalist James Foley. The US has launched a limited air campaign against the terrorist group in Iraq since August 8.

Watch the interview here

The Israeli Broadcast Authority and the Israeli Supreme Court knew in advance what the reaction would be to a radio advertisement reading out the names of children killed in Gaza, and that’s why they banned it.

By doing so they’ve taken a bit of our freedom.

Muhammad Malakeh, two years old; Siraj ‘Abd al-’Al, eight years old; Sarah al-’Eid, nine years old; Saher Abu Namus, four years old; Ahmad Mahdi, 15 years old.

Some facts should not be permitted to be broadcast in public. Merely hearing them is dangerous: It could cause people to have thoughts, doubts or compassion. If this danger comes to pass, what would become of us?

Safaa Malakeh, six years old; Muhammad ‘Arif, 10 years old; Nidal Nawasrah, four years old; Muhammad Nawasrah, two years old; Miriam al-’Arja, 10 years old.

What sort of thoughts would enter the minds of those who hear even a few names from that forbidden list? It’s difficult to estimate. As a matter of fact, it is a complete mystery as to how humans would respond upon hearing the names of foreign children, Palestinian children – more than 500 under the age of 15 – who were killed in Gaza in the past few weeks. This mystery is part of what makes us free. When that mystery is solved in advance by the government, a part of what allows the public to be free is taken away. It is no longer a mystery, it is propaganda.

Abdallah Abu Ghazal, five years old; Yasmin al-Mutawaq, four years old; Abd a-Rahman Khatab, five years old; Anas ‘Alaa al-Batsh, 10 years old; Amal al-Batsh, two years old.

Palestinians prepare the body of a baby in Kamal Edwan Hospital's morgue after an attack on Beit Hanoun elementary school killed at least 17 people, Jabalyia, Gaza Strip, July 24. The school was being used as a shelter by 800 people at the time (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills)

Image: Palestinians prepare the body of a baby in Kamal Edwan Hospital’s morgue after an attack on Beit Hanoun elementary school killed at least 17 people, Jabalyia, Gaza Strip, July 24. The school was being used as a shelter by 800 people at the time (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills)

Without being able to hear for ourselves, we have no choice but to rely on the thoughts of those who appointed themselves the deciders of what we can and cannot hear: the lawyers of the Israeli Broadcast Authority (IBA), the attorney general of Israel and a few Supreme Court judges, who disqualified the broadcast of a B’Tselem radio advert [Hebrew]:

Here is the rumination of the appeals committee of the IBA: “The emphasis of the ‘Palestinian children’ issue alone may strengthen the Palestinian claim that Israel is responsible for their deaths, while Israel’s stance is that Hamas is responsible for the death of civilians.”

In other words, stating the facts creates guilt. Psychologists would perhaps call this the “return of the repressed.”

When the attorney general listened to the names, thoughts entered his mind: “The advert in question voices a message and a stand, and not just mere facts – in light of its content, how it is delivered and read quietly and slowly…” That is to say, perhaps a cheerful reading of the dead children’s names, in a manner that would not provoke forbidden thoughts, is, in fact, the appropriate solution?

A Palestinian child who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on the Gaza harbour is carried away by paramedics, Gaza city, July 16, 2014. Four children were reportedly killed during the attack. As of July 16th, 196 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip, and more than 1,400 have been injured.

In conclusion, Supreme Court Judge Elyakim Rubinstein says: “This is the place to clarify in a lucid voice first that, as human beings, we frown upon the death of innocents in Gaza, let alone children.”

Later on the court decision follows: “Israel is aware, and must be aware, of the distress of innocents on the other side – children included… as an attorney general myself, I have dealt with that quite often.”

It is interesting to listen to the “lucid” voice of a supreme court judge, the coherent and deciding voice that rules whether other tones – sober, complex, relaxing or agitating – will be heard, or not; the voice that itself admits that for years and years it has held a position devoid of repression or guilt, since it is never our fault and there must never ever be any doubt, contemplation or empathy on the matter.

Hussein Kaware’, 13 years old; Basem Kaware’, 10 years old; Muhammad Kaware’, 13 years old; Abdallah Kaware’, 12 years old; Qasem Kaware’, 12 years old.

That’s the reality we live in nowadays, and here is the bottom line: There is no one in Israel who will enable the reading of the names of Siraj, Nidal, Sarah or Amal. More than anything, this is an appalling and heartbreaking statement on the current state of affairs.

“And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes. And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?” (Genesis, 37:29)

And we, whither shall we go?

Hagai El-Ad is the CEO of B’Tselem. (Translated by Hadas Leonov)

Read this post in Hebrew on Local Call

Global Research Editor’s note

We bring to the attention of our readers this incisive and carefully documented 2005 article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published by Rolling Stone, first posted on Global Research in July 2009. 

The article sheds light on the collusion between Big Pharma and the US government and the dangers associated with vaccines produced by major pharmaceutical companies. This article is of particular relevance to the current debate on the H1N1 swine flu virus and plans by the WHO, The Obama Administration and Big Pharma to develop a swine flu vaccine.

The article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. documented ”the government’s efforts to conceal alarming data about the dangers of vaccines.”

This article is of  particular relevance in the light of recent revelations concerning CDC Vaccine Research Fraud. 

Michel Chossudovsky, August 29, 2014


Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity

Government Cover-up of a Mercury/Autism Scandal

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Rollingstone.com, 20 July 2005

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session — only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly “embargoed.” There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines — thimerosal — appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. “I was actually stunned by what I saw,” Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants — in one case, within hours of birth — the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. “You can play with this all you want,” Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results “are statistically significant.” Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting’s first day, was even more alarmed. “My gut feeling?” he said. “Forgive this personal comment — I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.”

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line. “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits,” said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. “This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.” Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.” Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that “perhaps this study should not have been done at all.” He added that “the research results have to be handled,” warning that the study “will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group.”

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children’s health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants — but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines — including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government’s vaccine-related documents — including the Simpsonwood transcripts — and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 — but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,” says Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government’s effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic,” his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. “This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of “institutional malfeasance for self protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical.

I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government’s need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. “Why should we scare people about immunization,” Waxman pointed out at one hearing, “until we know the facts?”

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation’s pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation — those born between 1989 and 2003 — who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. “The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage,” Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. “Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.”

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis — a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. “If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis,” scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity, “then where are all the twenty-year-old autistics?” Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative “load” of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It’s a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received — but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore — and cover up — the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines — and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage — and even death — in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected — a fact Lilly didn’t bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal’s safety “did not check with ours.” Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it “poison.” In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly’s own studies discerned that thimerosal was “toxic to tissue cells” in concentrations as low as one part per million — 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as “nontoxic” and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within twenty-four hours of birth, and two-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, “especially when used on infants and children,” noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. “The best way to go,” he added, “is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this “cost consideration,” Merck ignored Hilleman’s warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations — for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. “What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?” Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. “Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”

But by that time, the damage was done. At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury — a level 99 times greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies — including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health — suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don’t require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC’s top vaccine advisers, told me, “I think if we really have an influenza pandemic — and certainly we will in the next twenty years, because we always do — there’s no way on God’s earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials.”

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee’s chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC “routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,” even though they have “interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.” The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine “had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he “would make money” if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist’s direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. “It provides no conflict for me,” he insists. “I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It’s offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It’s just not the way it works.”

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children’s health, proud of their “partnerships” with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children’s health. They are often resentful of questioning. “Science,” says Offit, “is best left to scientists.”

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. “I’m not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now,” Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, “will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use” of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines — which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense — over to a private agency, America’s Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe,” Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result “Walt wants” — a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. “We’ve got a dragon by the tail here,” said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. “The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization — and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge.”

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. “Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,” Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. “In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.” Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal’s risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and — in a startling position for a scientific body — recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were “fatally flawed” by “poor design” and failed to represent “all the available scientific and medical research.” CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because “an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?”

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used in the Verstraeten study, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a “very significant relationship” between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines — the kind of population that scientists typically use as a “control” in experiments — Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three — including one child adopted from outside the Amish community — had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. “After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism,” says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation. “The fact that Iowa’s 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children’s vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone.” Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in thirty-two other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries — some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders “under review.”

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. “The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence,” says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. “The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It’s bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you’ve ever seen.”

It’s hard to calculate the damage to our country — and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases — if Third World nations come to believe that America’s most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It’s not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America’s enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers — many of them sincere, even idealistic — who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world’s poorest populations.

NOTE: This story has been updated to correct several inaccuracies in the original, published version. As originally reported, American preschoolers received only three vaccinations before 1989, but the article failed to note that they were innoculated a total of eleven times with those vaccines, including boosters. The article also misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms – an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. Finally, because of an editing error, the article misstated the contents of the rotavirus vaccine approved by the CDC. It did not contain thimerosal. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.

An earlier version of this story stated that the Institute of Medicine convened a second panel to review the work of the Immunization Safety Review Committee that had found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the IOM convened the second panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program, including those raised by critics of the IOM’s earlier work. But the panel was not charged with reviewing the committee’s findings. The story also inadvertently omitted a word and transposed two sentences in a quote by Dr. John Clements, and incorrectly stated that Dr. Sam Katz held a patent with Merck on the measles vaccine. In fact, Dr. Katz was part of a team that developed the vaccine and brought it to licensure, but he never held the patent. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.

CLARIFICATION: After publication of this story, Salon and Rolling Stone corrected an error that misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms ? an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. At the time of the correction, we were aware that the comparison itself was flawed, but as journalists we considered it more appropriate to state the correct figure rather than replace it with another number entirely.

Since that earlier correction, however, it has become clear from responses to the article that the forty-percent number, while accurate, is misleading. It measures the total mercury load an infant received from vaccines during the first six months, calculates the daily average received based on average body weight, and then compares that number to the EPA daily limit. But infants did not receive the vaccines as a ?daily average? ? they received massive doses on a single day, through multiple shots. As the story states, these single-day doses exceeded the EPA limit by as much as 99 times. Based on the misunderstanding, and to avoid further confusion, we have amended the story to eliminate the forty-percent figure.

Correction: The story misattributed a quote to Andy Olson, former legislative counsel to Senator Bill Frist. The comment was made by Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to the senator. Rolling Stone and Salon.com regret the error.

Copyright: Rolling Stone and Salon, 2005


 Kennedy Report Sparks Controversy

“Deadly Immunity,” our story about the link between mercury in vaccines and the dramatic rise in autism among children [RS 977/978], sparked intense reaction from the medical establishment and several leading news organizations. The story, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — part of an ongoing collaboration with Salon.com — documented the government’s efforts to conceal alarming data about the dangers of vaccines.

What is most striking is the lengths to which major media outlets have gone to disparage the story and to calm public fears — even in the face of the questionable science on the subject. In a segment on World News Tonight titled “A Closer Look,” ABC pointed out that Kennedy is “not a scientist or a doctor” and dismissed his extensive evidence as nothing more than “a few scientific studies.” The network also trotted out its medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, to praise the “impeccably impartial Institute of Medicine” and to again state that Kennedy is not a scientist.

The New York Times, in a front-page story on the subject, devoted only one line to Kennedy’s article, which it said accused public-health officials and drugmakers of “conspiring” to hide the data on autism — a word that our story neither used nor implied. (The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed attacking the article, was even more misleading, using the word “conspiracy” four times.) The Times then went on, for more than a full page, to portray concerns over vaccines as nothing more than the misguided fears of parents who suffer from “scientific illiteracy,” unable to understand the medical studies that prove immunizations to be safe. It depicted studies reviewed by the Institute of Medicine as definitive without even bothering to address the host of serious questions raised about their validity: conflicting diagnoses of autism, mixed-up data from HMOs and research skewed to exclude many sick kids.

Rolling Stone and Salon fact-checked the article thoroughly before publication, insisting on primary documentation for every statement in the story, and posted links to the most significant materials online to enable readers to judge for themselves. The final article contained six errors. These ranged from inadvertently transposing a quote and confusing a drug license for a patent to relying on a figure that incorrectly calculated an infant’s exposure to mercury over six months, rather than citing the even more dangerous amount injected on a single day. (The mistakes were corrected online as soon as they were discovered and can be viewed in detail at both RollingStone.com and Salon.com.)

It is important to note, however, that none of the mistakes weaken the primary point of the story. The government’s own records show that it has failed to do the science necessary to put to rest reasonable concerns about vaccines. If the scientists had simply done their job rather than covering their tracks, there would be no controversy today. Instead, the government cannot even provide a definitive figure of the number of cases of autism among American children — a number obviously critical to any serious scientific investigation — and yet expects the public to believe that it has ruled out any link between vaccines and an illness it does not even track.

“Science,” as one doctor in our story insisted, “is best left to scientists.” But when the scientists fail to do their job, resorting to closed-door meetings and rigged studies, others in society have not only a right but a moral obligation to question their work. In the coming years, further research may indeed demonstrate that mercury in vaccines is not responsible for the rise in autism. For now, though, we can only raise a very real and legitimate alarm — and hope that the government’s well-documented mishandling of its own research did not needlessly jeopardize the health of hundreds of thousands of children.

The United Kingdom as a rogue state and a danger to the world, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said.

“The British Government is deeply, deeply immoral. They don’t care how many people they kill abroad if it advances them. Anybody who votes No [to Scottish independence] is voting to support a pathological state which is a danger in the world, a rogue state and a state prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy,”

Murray said in a speech made ahead of an historic vote on Scottish independence to be held in just three weeks.

He told an open public meeting in St Andrews that the actions he witnesses as a senior diplomat had changed his “world view” and said it was now “impossible to be proud of the United Kingdom.”

“I think it is impossible to be proud of the United Kingdom. I think when we invaded Iraq we did to the United Nations what Hitler and Mussolini did to the League of Nations,” Murray added.

“I think what we have done since where the truth is often much hidden, if you look at Libya it is a disaster now we bombed it and we killed 15,000 people when NATO bombed Sirte, something they never told you on the BBC. Did we make it better? No,”

“I’ve seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign interventions are almost always about resources. It is every bit as corrupt as others have indicated. It is not an academic construct, the system stinks,” a former British Ambassador said.

Murray, who is a member of “English for independence” a group of English born residents living in Scotland who back Scottish independence, said that although he had once been proud to be British, the UK’s involvement in rendition, torture and the invasion of Iraq had altered his allegiance.

“I was a British diplomat for 20 years. I was always very patriotic to be British and I was very, very proud of it,” he stated.

“When I first became a British Ambassador and first went out in my own flag car with the Union Jack flying on the front I had a lump in my throat. It was a proud moment for me. It was only six months after that I discovered that in the country where I was Ambassador we and the Americans were shipping people in order for them to be tortured. Some of them were tortured to death,” Murray added.

“Now as you may imagine, my world view changed,” he added.

“It was at the same time, a month later, that we invaded Iraq against the will of the Security Council. Not just without the permission of the Security Council but in the full knowledge that if it had gone to the Security Council we would have been voted down,”the former diplomat said.

“I know for certain – as I used to be head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office unit that monitored Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – I know for certain that they knew there weren’t any. It wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie,” Murray concluded.

Former Secretary General of NATO, Lord George Robertson earlier warned Scottish independence would have a “cataclysmic” impact on the world.

Robertson, a former British MP, told an audience in the United States, that “the loudest cheers for the break-up of Britain would be from our adversaries and from our enemies. For the second military power in the West to shatter this year would be cataclysmic in geopolitical terms.”

Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on 18th September and will be asked one question, “Should Scotland become an independent country?”

This article was first published on August 11, 2014

Despite an outcry from its own readers, The Guardian went ahead and published this disgusting ad in [its] print edition [August 11]

And it emerged today that they did so very consciously. A spokesperson for the paper told The Morning Star that the “decision to run any display advertisement in the Guardian is made on a case-by-case basis and there was a full discussion about accepting the advert in question.”

This despite an online petition against the ad, which the Stop the War Coalition says was signed by 140,000 people within 24 hours.

Owen Jones, ones of the paper’s left-wing columnists, today said on Twitter that the ad was “vile.”

The decision to run this virulently anti-Palestinian ad is symptomatic of a relatively recent turn at The Guardian. The Jewish anti-Zionist blog Jews Sans Frontieres Saturday looked at several recent problematic pieces there and concluded someone is “pulling out all the stops to place The Guardian firmly in the Zionist camp.”

Image: Blood libel: part of the ad as it ran in US papers (click here for full image).

Original article:

Any newspaper that published an advertisement accusing Jews of “child sacrifice” would rightly be condemned as anti-Semitic.

How is it, then, that Britain’s leading “liberal” newspaper is set to publish just such an ad about Palestinians on Monday? [August 11]

The Guardian’s media columnist yesterday justified publishing the ad, saying it does not mean “that it endorses the views and claims made within it.”

This holds no water.

Newspapers can pick and choose the ads they run, and often turn down offensive submissions. As The Guardian notes, right-wing London newspaper The Times has, to its credit, rejected the ad.

The ad was composed by US TV personality Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Nobel prize-winning author Elie Wiesel.

Wiesel has been a chair of the advisory board of Elad, a group of fanatical religious Israeli setters actively involved in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the eastern sector of occupied Jerusalem.

The ad, already run in some US newspapers, is incitement to genocide.

Its dog whistle reference about “child sacrifice” will be clearly understood by religious fundamentalists.

Blood libel

Despite Israeli propaganda refrains about Palestinian resistance fighters supposedly using the population of Gaza as “human shields,” zero evidence has been presented.

This is a calumny, and a blood libel against the Palestinian people – one readily accepted by too many journalists.

In fact the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen wrote last month:

I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields. I saw men from Hamas on street corners, keeping an eye on what was happening. They were local people and everyone knew them, even the young boys. Raji Sourani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, told me that Hamas, whatever you think of it, is part of the Palestinian DNA.

Like so many Zionist propaganda accusations against the Palestinian people, the “human shields” calumny is a projection.

It is Israel that has a long record, documented by local and international human rights groups, of using Palestinians as human shields.

A new piece by journalist Max Blumenthal this week documents how Israel even uses its own civilians as human shields.

Abuse of history

A statement signed by more than one hundred Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors of the Nazi holocaust condemns “Elie Wiesel’s abuse of our history … to promote blatant falsehoods used to justify the unjustifiable: Israel’s wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of nearly 2,000 Palestinians.”

Circulated by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network yesterday, organizers are hoping to be able to raise enough money to run the statement as an ad in The New York Times, which published the Elie Wiesel ad.

Genocidal incitement

Image: “Child Sacrifice: We’re Not So Different Today” — screenshot from a modern evangelical website.

The dog whistle in the ad will be clear to anti-Palestinian religious fundamentalists from the language used. The reference to alleged “Canaanite practices of child sacrifice to Moloch” is explicit.

In the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, the Canaanites were people who lived in the land before the mythical figure Joshua drove them out. The Bible depicts this as a bloody genocide.

(Most modern biblical scholars consider these accounts of genocide and ethnic cleansing to be mythical. The ancient Hebrew people of history arose gradually from a Canaanite milieu.)

Leviticus 20:2 says: “Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek [another way to transliterate Moloch] is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.”

Jeremiah 49 warns, “Ai is destroyed! Cry out, you inhabitants of Rabbah! … for Molek will go into exile, together with his priests and officials.”

The story goes that Ai was a Canaanite city Joshua burned to the ground, leaving “a permanent heap of ruins.” After defeating its armed forces, Joshua “returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day — all the people of Ai.”

The implication of all this is clear: the Canaanites deserved to die, because they killed their own children.

This racist ad makes an explicit parallel between these ancient myths and modern-day Palestine, casting the Palestinian people as the modern-day Canaanites.

The implication of this disgusting ad is that the Palestinians, too, deserve to die during Israel’s ongoing brutal assault in the Gaza Strip.

“The Canaanite practices of child sacrifice to Moloch are forever left behind … Except they are not,” the ad reads. “I call upon the Palestinian people to find true Muslims to represent them.”

Cries for genocide

While the ad is ostensibly addressed to “Hamas,” the implication is clear: the hundreds of Palestinian children that Israel has killed were actually “sacrificed” by Hamas. Israel must have been forced to kill them.

In the context of ever-increasingly explicit cries in Israeli society for complete genocide in the Gaza Strip, such incitement must be taken most seriously.

The deputy speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, last week published a plan calling for the “conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters.”

Israeli army officers have recently called for “holy war” against Gaza by “God’s army” – supposedly the Israeli army.

The Israeli press has recently printed calls for “dismantling Gaza,” claiming there is “no such thing as ‘innocent civilians’” in Gaza and even, in one now-deleted blog post on the Times of Israel website, musing on “When genocide is permissible.”

That The Guardian, a supposedly liberal newspaper, seems to want to add fuel to these deadly flames by publishing such a disgusting ad speaks volumes about its anti-Palestinian agenda.

Russia and Eurasia: Who are the Russians?

August 29th, 2014 by Gaither Stewart

“Native land of enduring patience,
The land of the Russian people!”

(Fyodor Tiutchev,(1803-1873), Romantic poet, second to Pushkin)

All things Russian have always seemed exotic, strange and incomprehensible to Westerners. Russians themselves have long debated the question as to who they are: Westerners or Asians? Or are they something else? In any case, as reflected in current Russian foreign policy, the history of Russia is also inextricably bound up with Eurasia, the territory between Europe and Asia.

Though of primary importance to Russia, the borders with Europe have always been far more rigid that those open borders with Asia itself. Asia for Russia remains an open space. That historical reality is of fundamental significance today in the dispute over Ukraine (which ignorant policy makers in the USA aim at sucking into Europe) as well as in Russia’s recent about-face and its search for primary relations with Asia and the creation of an exchange currency that is no longer Western.

In the same light, again today, Western peoples in general are perplexed by the Russia-Ukraine question. What does it mean? Just who are these “ethnic Russians” living in Ukraine anyway? If they don’t like it there, shouldn’t they move to Russia?

On this site, Mike Whitney produced an excellent interview with Russian President Putin’s advisor and friend, Sergei Glaziev, under the title of “Understanding Ukraine in 15 minutes”. Well, that title appears to me a bit of a journalistic exaggeration for the answers to these questions are complex and reach far back into the history of the Slavic peoples.

Here I have sketched out some of the related problematics, offered a scant historical background to the Slavic question, and taken a closer look at just who these Russians and Ukrainians really are.

The short answer is that they do not know themselves who they are. Russians wonder if Russia is an European country or whether she is not an extra-European country, westernized artificially and hastily by an elite of Peter the Great and to the detriment of her true values. Russians intellectuals too have long been puzzled by the problem. “Westernizers” in Russia saw the salvation of their country in a rapid assimilation of western culture; the so-called “Slavophiles” believed Russia could only be true to herself by maintaining and strengthening all that separated her from the West, by remaining loyal to her past values, and the development of a culture in opposition to the culture of the West. The struggle has gone on for eons, marked and distinguished by the Great Russian Revolution.

Today’s disputed country of Ukraine lies between Russia to its East and Poland to its West. One should keep in mind that Russians and Ukrainians, together with the Byelorussians of Byelorus just north of Ukraine, are historically one people, each however with its linguistic and cultural differences. For over three millennia these peoples, the Slavs, have inhabited parts of the enormous territory now known as Russia extending from the Black Sea eastwards across two continents nearly to Alaska, and from the North Pole to Persia in the South, an area bigger than the entire North American continent and one-sixth of the world’s land surface. Those peoples are known by the linguistic name of East Slavs. (The West Slavs are chiefly Poles and Czechs, the South Slavs Serbs, Croatians and Bulgarians).

However, as has been said, “geography may set the stage for history; men make history.” (Nicholas Riasanovsky, A History of Russia.) And what men made Russia’s history! Giants of men. Throughout the ages and across these great lands, hundreds of non-Slavic nationalities and cultures, European and Asian, Mongol and Persian, ancient Sumerians and the Iranian-speaking Asiatic Scythians from Central Asia have intermingled. Two of the most international rail stations in the world are Moscow’s Yaroslavsky and Kazansky stations serving hundreds of such peoples from Europe to Asia.

Who are the Russians? you still ask. Telling, the answer of the great Russian poet, Alexander Blok, who wrote: “Yes, we are Scythians. Yes, we are Asiatics. With slanting and greedy eyes.”

Russian tanker crews parade in victory celebration over fascism (2013).

Image: Russian tanker crews parade in victory celebration over fascism (2013). Note that while technically living under capitalism, they still honor Communist emblems.

My close friend, a Russian painter and originally an ethnic Russian from Kkarkov in today’s Ukraine, ( I find it difficult to write the Ukrainian Kharkiv) now for forty years in New York, has those slanting eyes, as do his two children, and to a minor degree, his grandchildren. Scythians, Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans, Americans? As much as my Russian-speaking friend tries to speak Ukrainian just to show off, I who do not know Ukrainian as such understand him perfectly. It’s like hearing English with a thick French accent.

Yet Russia shows that continuity is the real stuff of history. Events like the arrival of Christianity in Russia in the 9th century, the Mongol domination over Russian lands from the early 13th century to the late 15th, the Napoleonic invasion in 1812 and the burning of Moscow, World War I and II, and the Russian Revolution each brought about great change at enormous loss in Russian lives.

In the light of these confusing and historically tremendous occurrences the thinking person is made aware that it is the relationship of the present with the past that makes a given present meaningful. Without continuity in the histories of Europe, in Russia, China, and also in America, each new generation would have to start over again and again, as, say, in a typical story invented by Jorge Borges. Myths, anecdotes and stories about the Mongol (Tatar) domination abound in Russian literature. The period extending from the Tatar invasion to the unification of Russia by the Moscow ruler Ivan III appears like a black hole in Russian history that historian D.S. Mirsky labels Russia’s “Dark Ages”. The saying ‘Scratch a Russian and find Tatar’ is valid, if only in those slanting eyes of my dear friend.

Here we are most interested in the so-called East Slavs, that is, those peoples who remained in their original territories north of the Black Sea after the Slavs split into three groups in the mid First millennium A.D., some moving south, others more westwards. The East Slavs speak the Eastern variety of the common Slavic. Russian speakers, the Great Russians, have always dominated the East Slavs. Their descendants remain today among those “ethnic Russians” in southeast Ukraine, in Crimea, the country of Moldova and the Transdnestr Republic, whom their brothers in Kiev, seduced by promises of gold from the West, want to expel or exterminate. And their language and culture are Russian.

Kievan Russia

It is an irony of history that the city of Kiev, today’s Ukrainian capital situated west of a more Asian Russia, was the first Russian state. Kiev, the city where this year the USA first ruthlessly overturned Ukraine’s legally elected Russian-friendly government and ignorantly installed a puppet government to rule over a phony state with the phony goal of becoming part of he European Union,  A phony and impossible state in any case because Ukraine for Russia is like Texas or Midwestern states are to the United States. Russia would never surrender it totally to the West. Enough today for Moscow to turn off the oil spigots to re-establish the order the Slavs have always needed.

Mystery surrounds the establishment of the Kievan state. Its origins are connected with a tribe of people called “Rus”, from which the word Russian derives. Some historians claim the quarrelling Slavs called in Varangians (Swedes) to come and rule over their lands and create order out of chaos. According to many historians the Rus were one of those Varangian tribes; other theories link the Rus to Slavic tribs or people in northern lands or even in the south of Crimea and surrounding territories. Although the name Rus, many historians have discovered, was previously unknown in the West, the name stuck. Rus became identified with the Kievan East Slavic-speaking state. In any case, the Rus formed a large group among them, most certainly Slavic, spoke a language that soon became Russian and established themselves from Kiev northwards to the heart of traditional Russian lands—like Novgorod, Vologda, Vladimir-Suzdal. And finally Moscow—which because of the city’s central position and because its great river, the Moskva, was a principle trade route—became the center of the future Russian empire.

I try not to stray from the subject of who these modern day Russians are but this minor and limited incursion into the complex story of the origins of Slavs and their state is necessary in order to know what we are talking about. Suffice it to say here that the Kievan state has the place in Russian history as does, say, the thirteen original colonies in the formation of the USA. An important and influential world capital in those times appears today as a second-class, boring puppet city-state controlled by a failing and waning US world power, a power with no concept of the significance of history.

As Kievan Russia—the future Russia itself—developed and expanded its borders ever farther eastwards, and became an important state, a new element was introduced into its culture: Christianity. Riasanovsky writes that by the early eleventh century Kiev had become a new Christian civilization, a civilization that added “literary and artistic attainment to the political power and high economic development characteristic of the age.”

Kiev’s rulers over pagan Russians first studied the major religions and according to legend decided against Islam—it forbade alcohol—because “drink is the joy of the Russian”—and against Judaism because it reflected beliefs of a defeated people without a state. Kievan Rus chose to become the Eastern version of  Christendom, opening Russia to Byzantine culture and the Christian world at large, thus early on belying its reputation of a closed civilization. However, lest one forget, Christianity came to Russia from Byzantium, not from Rome. Since the break between the two churches the controversy between Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy remains today.

During the late Soviet period I had occasion to speak with Alexis II, the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church, at a historic meeting of eleven heads of the various Eastern churches held in Istanbul. To my question about attempts to mend the millennium old separation of the Eastern and Western churches and of relations with the Vatican, Alexis said clearly: “We are after all Russians.”

With that background fixed in mind, we leap over centuries of wars and pestilence, the Tatar invasion, serfdom, to the last stages of Tsardom. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the ex-serfs were still linked in an economic vise to the land and large property owners from which they had been officially emancipated. While their desire for their own property plots drove the serfs, the Revolution itself opposed the very idea in the name of collectivization. Collectivization in agriculture was not one of the successes of the new Socialist state because the serfs of this traditionally agricultural land, resisted and wanted their own private plots of land. As a result of collectivization in agriculture, the number of families on the land diminished from 26,000,000 to 21,000,000 which meant that 5,000,000 abandoned the land, (Riasanovsky), some moving to urban areas, others to the Far East or elsewhere. In any case, the price was too high and was never really recovered, contrary to Socialist theory and expectations.

Soviet Kiev

After centuries of silence, Kiev, as the capital city of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, became an agricultural giant and regained some small part of its former luster. The Donbas (the Donetz-Basin) in East Ukraine became a major Soviet industrial center. Populated by “ethnic Russians”, it is today the region of the “rebels”, the “terrorists” in American political lingo, the Russian-Ukrainians who have separated from the Kiev puppet state and without which Kiev cannot survive economically.

donetskRegion

Though Kiev was one of Soviet Russia’s most important cities, it was already sinking into provincialism. The second rate glory of THE Ukraine, the “bread basket” of former Soviet Russia, ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Especially since the Russian Revolution, the Ukraine has been one thing, Kiev another.

History itself opposes the dream of newfound Kievan glory instigated by the USA. That ahistorical dream is destined to boomerang against the rest of Europe itself. For Russia is present … ever present.

UKR-fascists-Lemberg280443

Talk about a battle between East and West for Ukraine’s soul is simply linguistic terminology, and at its worst political propaganda. An impossible quandary. Ukraine (the word means “borderlands”- like, say, New Mexico or Southern California in the USA. Ukraine is a geographical term. As such it has no soul. Only a handful of maverick, sold-out Ukrainians (Borderland Russians or Little Russians as they have long been called) can sell their souls. But not Ukraine itself which would be a contradiction of terms. As discussed above, Ukraine IS Russia. Its people are the original Russians. They are basically the same. Many Great Russians to the East do not recognize this as a historical-geographical-demographical reality. Borderlands have no fixed borders. In that sense it is farcical to even speak of Ukraine’s eastern borders. American imperialistic-military planners as well as West Europeans, do not, can not grasp the real Ukrainian story. How can Americans know when they do not even know exactly where Ukraine is and who its people are? Ukraine’s Nazis and Fascists who collaborated with the German Nazi invaders in WWII do not, can not reflect the real Ukraine.

Russia

Moscow responds to Western economic sanctions with counter-sanctions that already loom dramatic for economies of West Europe, especially the major economies of Germany, France, and Italy. Germany’s  industrial exports to Russia amount to 36 billion Euros; and over 400,000 German workers are employed in companies exporting to Russia. The sanctions have cost Italy over $1 billion in lost exports, especially agricultural producers whose crops are already rotting in the fields. Big Italian energy companies, with major investments in Russia, face even bigger losses. With the sanctions Italy’s sick economy has lost any chance for recovery. Spanish farmers stand to lose 158 million Euros from the sanctions against their fresh fruit and nuts, or 22% of their total exports to non-EU countries; Greek farmers will lose 107 million Euros. Spanish meat exporters will lose 111 million Euros.

Much of this age is bedeviled by the sheer toxicity of the so-called Anglo-American alliance.

The West cuts industrial exports to Russia, Russia answers: no more Western automobiles to Russia; we’ll use our own; we’ll also eat our own cheese and drink our own beer. And they will. (I’ve drunk a lot of Russian beer and eaten a lot of Russian cheese and was perfectly satisfied.)

The question ordinary Europeans ask is: Why does Europe not rebel against America’s selfish and base diktats? And that, dear readers, is a key question. It is true that Europe is in decline and that the future is in Asia and elsewhere. Yet Europe is still Europe, the cultural home of many of us, and a continent-market of 450,000,000 persons, who export to and import from Russia. So what Europe does in this circumstance is not secondary.

At the same time many Russians want to be part—even if peripherally—of Europe. Even the old de Gaulle dream of a Europe extending from the Atlantic Ocean to Russia’s Ural Mountains and on to Vladivostok is no longer valid; a renaissance of the European idea and resumption of normal Russo-Europe relations has more economic-cultural-demographic sense than a Europe deprived of Russia and hanging —abjectly—onto America’s coattails. Although in this turnaround no small shame attaches to the leaders of France, Italy and Germany, the lion’s share of the blame belongs with the utterly cynical role played by Britain, which has clearly chosen a complicit—if second-banana— position at the feet of the US empire than a more rational integrationist posture with the rest of Europe, including Russia. In that sense, much of this age is tarnished by the sheer toxicity of the so-called Anglo-American alliance.

russianEconomicSanctions

I have a number of Facebook Russian “friends”, some among ethnic Russians in Ukraine, others scattered here and there across Russia. One I read frequently is Sergey Zelenin, a free lance writer in the very Russian city of Vologda, called “the cultural capital of the North”, a city of 300,000 located between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Zelenin often posts entire articles on Facebook in which he describes what is happening and what is being discussed in Russia. In a recent article he portrayed the internal histories of the United States and Russia as more similar than I would guess 99% of Americans and Russians realize.

Zelenin examines salient points of the similarity of the formation and development of the two nations by comparing each of their bloody fratricidal wars that created their social character and brought about dramatic changes in each. I have both translated and interpreted his interesting article and his points of view and have added my own comments.

Under Russia’s internal wars the writer lists:

1. The “Time of Troubles” (Smutnoye Vremya) of 1598-1618), a bloody internal war that brought chaos and devastation to the country and resulted in the birth of the Romanov dynasty of the Tsars and the empire it created.

2. The Civil War of 1917-1922, another terrible, fratricidal carnage, brought down the Romanov tsardom which was then replaced by the new Soviet (Socialist/Communist) system. “And only by God’s Providence,” writes Zelenin, “was Russia spared a repetition of the same slaughter in the early 1990s after the fall of Communism in Russia when there were only local hotbeds of instability.”

Zelenin then devotes more space to the historical formation of the United States of America than to Russia, with which country Russians are much more familiar than are Americans with Russia.

1. The Revolutionary War (1775-1783) like Russia’s wars above pitted Americans against Americans, or rather, as Zelenin notes, “English loyalists to the British Empire against English fighting for independence”, that is for self-determination, as are ethnic Russians in southeast Ukraine today against a foreign imposed regime in the nation’s capital of Kiev. In any case the result of that war was the birth of the American nation, that is, the United States of America. (Today we witness the birth of the Donetsk People’s Republic and similar entities in Novorossiya.)

2. The Civil War (1861-1865) the now clearly Americans fought against other Americans. A ferocious war allegedly to free the black slaves but in reality for the rights of the southern states to indulge and expand their “way of life” and the unity of the country. “Though the conflict had a constitutional character, the situation of Black slaves did not bother anyone excessively. I, (Zelenin) would place their liberation on one table together with the Homestead Act, which together attracted Abe Lincoln to their side.” The Russian writer explains that decisions for the benefits of Blacks and farmers were not only of momentary interest; they affected the subsequent history of the USA as a whole. Thus the frontier moved forward and by the 1890s the American pioneers stopped only at the Pacific Ocean. However, the real freedom of the Blacks had to wait 100 years more. Here Zelenin notes that the liberation of Russia’s serfs came about earlier. Their freedom then became full rights after the 1917 Communist Revolution when all the restrictions and harassment they had suffered were eliminated.

Zelenin thus raises not only historical but political-ideological questions. By implication, he asks, which system—that imposed by the American pioneers free to own lands as far as the eye could see or the Socialism born with the idea of a classless society based on social equality—offers society more?

Many Americans—the Exceptionalists, Libertarians, the self-made men, the me-for-me people, the Capitalists, the 1%, the piously religious—believe the former.  People of the Left, unfortunately not the majority in the USA but, like the huge majority of the “real” peoples of the world, the truly spiritual, believe the latter.

Zelenin, I believe, wanted to say also that pragmatic, cool American thought is diametrically opposed to the Russian mirovozreniye, their world outlook, which has a spiritual quality. American thought has a purely religious outlook which is hardly the same thing.

The Russians

So how are these Russians, so like and at the same time so unlike Western peoples? Most certainly Russia itself is different. Different as the elements in Russia are different. Russians have a strong sense of nature which also acquires a spiritual significance. Russians are a spiritual people. Russians are conscious of belonging to nature and are strongly aware of nature’s beauty. A sense of the beauty of nature that is reflected in its art, especially in the pictorial arts. In fact Russia decided upon Greek Orthodoxy because of the beauty of its liturgy; they were convinced that God lay in that beauty. Their affinity with that beauty is reflected in the beauty of their ecclesiastical buildings, the shapes and colors of their elaborately decorated churches. For the Russian Orthodox—believers and clergy alike—Christ’s life on earth is less important than the idea of a reigning Christ-God. They prefer the resurrection to the crucifixion. The humanity of Jesus on earth creates an uneasy feeling in Russian believers. For the spiritual person Christ shouldn’t be too human, nor weak and depraved like Dostoevsky’s characters.

The dominant trend in Russian literature and thought has been ethical since the times of the Kievan state. The problem for Russian literature and its creative writers has been how to live and what to do for one’s salvation. (Again, see Dostoevsky, whose whole work was an idea.) That the answer was sought more in a moral life than in the sacraments constitutes a cutting difference between Russian and Western religious minds.

Many Americans—the Exceptionalists, Libertarians, the self-made men, the me-for-me people, the Capitalists, the 1%, the piously religious—believe in a society based in the “rights” of unlimited property, with terrible consequences for humanity. 

The dominant Russian ethical attitude is to be found in charity. Not fear of God or other men, but charity. In Russian history neither purity nor the law is morally dominant. Even justice is an application of charity. Russian charity is the strongest among blood kin, the extended family (the rod) which for Russians is as powerful as the Italian family. This charity-love comes to embrace all fellowmen worldwide.

And thus, charity becomes the common denominator of Russian ethics. All men are brothers! One grasps without further explanation the connect between charity and love for one’s brother and all fellowmen with the basic concepts of Socialism/Communism.

The Russian in more normal times is allergic to hierarchy. I saw and experienced this myself in Russia and with Russians in the world. According to his spiritual make-up he is severe with his superiors and humble toward social inferiors. This too you read in Dostoevsky. Formality is one thing, love for one’s fellowman another.

Somewhere in this personality picture is concealed the Russian’s power of resistance, his instinct to survive and to win. As in the siege of Leningrad in WWII. As in the battle of Stalingrad. As in his resistance to the severity of the elements, to the cold of winters, to the madness of his fellowmen. And in turn to his proverbial patience: the image of the Russian soldier buried for days under ice and snow to emerge at the very moment the enemy appears in his sights. His ability to retreat into himself in wait of the propitious moment to emerge and to win … or to lose.

I like the metaphor of Russian rain. There are maybe a dozen Russian words to describe the types of rain. I think of Moscow rain as the German rain I lived under for many years that once it begins wants to stay with you. An affectionate rain. Unlike Rome rains—thunderous, magnificent, threatening, romantic, terrifying and electrifying, like an unbearable orgasm that you hope never ends—Russian rains are relentless, constant, rains that harden the people receiving it like a purifying gift from terrestrial skies and instill tenacity and resistance to hardships. Rains that then soon turn to snow and bring the cold of the Russian winter that has many times frustrated invaders and saved Russia.

And then there are the cold winds. Asian Russia-Siberia produces the winds that still chill Romans as they did Roman centurions two millennia ago. The Siberian winds change names several time as they sweep southwards; by the time they reach central Europe and Trieste on the Adriatic they are the “Bora”, winds that a few hours later freeze Rome overnight.

Or Russian faces, stern, curious, serious faces that like the rain only break and smile when there is a reason to smile.

And then there are the superstitions and customs that help define a people:

Russian travelers and those seeing them off sit for some moments in silence, allegedly to think if anything has been forgotten but in reality a quiet formality of goodwill that I’ve done hundreds of times. Then, you don’t clean the room of the departed until they have safely arrived. Handshakes across the threshold are absolutely forbidden: no Russian will ever offer his hand across the threshold. Looking at oneself in a broken mirror brings bad luck as does a boast about a future, hoped for success; silence reigns until success is achieved, then the celebration begins. Then, when you drink alcohol you must finish the whole bottle; home bars in a Russian house are rare. You buy a bottle, you drink it. And you must absolutely eat something with each drink, but careful to cut bread with a knife instead of breaking it by hand.

Such are these Russians, complex, unsmiling (be wary of a smiling Russian unless he has a reason to smile), superstitious, tenacious, curious, an expert on all the plants and animals of the world, tendentious with an opinion on everything, staunch, uncomplaining, more ready to be your brother than your enemy, generous (Russians hardly distinguish between what is a loan and what a gift), adaptable to the most extreme circumstances, the Russian, however loud and boisterous and tasteless as a tourist, is a spiritual creature aware of the entire world around him and in search of how to live best and sometimes a reason to live.

I will conclude this introduction to Russia and Ukraine with an article by the Russian writer, Egor Prosvirnin, as far I can ascertain a far rightist writing for a big far rightist website:

Egor Prosvirnin

Prosvirnin

My name is Egor Prosvirnin, I am the chief editor of the Russian site www.sputnikipogrom.com which advocates European values.

I’ve heard that one of the aspects of life that Europeans, and Germans especially cherish is history. If we were to recall recent history, we would remember that a vast army of 300,000 Soviet troops along with 5,000 tanks, 1,500 aircraft and 10,000 artillery pieces (including tactical nuclear weapons) simply left the then just-united Germany without firing a shot.

It was an operation unprecedented in scope and brevity, when the entire Soviet army withdrew literally to open fields. Tens of thousands of Soviet officers, obeying the orders of the supreme command, went from their warm barracks to live in moldy tents set up in the middle of sodden snow-covered fields. In many instances along with their families.

For what?

For hope. Hope that the dark pages of history between our two countries were finally and forever past. Hope that we no longer have to keep armies of tanks in the center of Europe, and that Europe would respect and consider our interests. Hope that in a united Germany we would have a good friend and ally, with whom Russia would fulfill the dream of Charles de Gaulle of a united Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

When our armies were leaving Germany, our soldiers were told that Germany had recognized and redeemed its mistakes of the past, there were no undecided issues with Germany, and that we would no longer hear German voices calling for retribution against Russia, therefore we did not need our Army of tanks positioned in the middle of Europe.

From that moment, Russians and Germans were friends, and friends have no need for vast armadas of armor and tanks. Russians should cease being afraid of a united Germany and disarm.

And we disarmed. And for 20 years we felt that we did the right thing, that the past is forgotten forever, and that the Germans appreciated how readily we closed all the bases and brought all the troops home (although there are American bases in Germany to date).

In good times our friends know us; in troubled times we come to know our friends; and troubled times did come via the Ukrainian crisis. It became clear that the Germans do not remember the good. It turned out that the Germans did not learn the lessons of history, it seems that the Germans viewed the voluntary dismantling and withdrawal of our war machine not as humanism and goodwill, but weakness.

It turns out that when the Americans spoke loudly and sharply with the German chancellor, whom they for all these years have kept under surveillance like some sticky-fingered housemaid, the entire German society leaped up like a submissive dog running obediently to its American master…. even when the conflict with Russia goes against German economic and political interests. It seems therefore that if one blunts their sword, removes their armor, ceases the Soviet-era preparations for World War III, and is reaching out to the Germans, the Germans will spit in your extended hand at the first opportunity.

It turns out that Russians are yet again “Untermensch”, who can be savaged with impunity on the pages of the German press and punitive sanctions demanded from the rostrum of the Bundestag, while disallowing an opportunity for Russia to openly and equitably argue its case. It turns out, however, that the Ukrainian government can without any liability prohibit the Russian language, jail Russian activists, target residential neighborhoods with volleys of artillery, kill thousands of civilians who happen to be mostly Russian – and that’s OK. It is OK because it’s a “democracy”, and it suits Germany because Russians are “Untermensch”, because Russians are Jews whose blood for Germans is worth nothing. And what’s more, for trying to defend themselves, for attempting to return fire against the Ukrainian armed forces, Russians should be punished, publicly harassed, their will to resist broken, and then forced into an international Russian ghetto.

Then burn that ghetto, as the Trade Unions building in Odessa was burned with 49 pro-Russian protesters inside. Do you know how the Ukrainian social networks responded to this holocaust? By referring to the dead as “Colorado Shishkebabs”(*) – this is what tens of thousands of people in the Ukrainian social networks wrote, including indecent sayings copied into photos of the charred bodies.

We are again the subhumans, we are again nothing but animals that Ukrainian Nazis may kill with impunity, creating a “Russian-frei Ukraina”.

According to the data collected by Human Rights Watch, only during this past July the Ukrainians killed one thousand one hundred fifty PEACEFUL RUSSIANS in the eastern part of the country, and these killings continue daily. Where are your protests, Germany? Where are your sanctions against Ukraine? Where is your vaunted humanism that you profess to have learned since 1945 by recognizing the errors from your past?

Saur-Mogila, which is located on strategic heights and is a memorial to Russian soldiers who died there 70 years ago during a fierce battle with the Wehrmacht, has once again been stormed. This time by the Ukrainian battalion “Azov” wearing their Wolfsangel patches, a symbol of the 2nd, 4th and 34th SS divisions, and you are silent! Russian militia are ducking behind the granite statues of Soviet soldiers from neo-Nazi bullets fired by “the National Guard” of Ukraine, and you dare to agree with the American nonsense about “Russian aggression”! Ukrainians shoot cities with ballistic missiles, leaving craters in places homes once stood, and you impose sanctions not against Ukraine but against Russia!

Again, troops are killing unarmed Russian civilians, and you are debating whether it is time to start delivering weapons to these murderers so that they can kill more Russians? All of your vaunted “politics of memory” and “learning from the past” is simply a pile of dog shit, as again before your eyes unarmed civilians are butchered, and you applaud this and promise these Ukrainian murderers fresh financing.

You have not learned humanism, you Germans. You have not learned responsibility. You have not learned to resist Evil and tell that Evil clearly to its face, “No, you are the killer, I will not help you, you must stop the killing immediately.” You have not learned to be a responsible, independent, free people, who are capable of giving good in return for good.

You are slaves who think good is a weakness.

In 1934, Hitler drove you like sheep, and in 2014 Obama is your shepherd. If tomorrow in Germany, the Americans open a concentration camp for Russians, half of you will immediately submit their curriculum vitae for jobs as operators of the gas chambers, and your press will start to explain how this camp is patriotic and good for the German economy. It would then follow that killing these Russian “Untermensch”, crafting lampshades out of their skin for daring to resist, and sending this nicely packaged to Washington to please your American ally.

Germans have failed their test. When Evil has returned again to Europe, you do not even attempt to resist it, and immediately fall prostrate at its feet like a slave after the eagerly-awaited, long delayed return of your master. Serve Evil, impose sanctions, support the murder of Russians, supply weapons to the killers of Russians, justify this genocide – the end of your story will be familiar, because Evil cannot win.

I will conclude this text with a popular quote from the famous American stateswoman Ms. Victoria Nuland, who obviously makes the decisions in Ukraine instead of your Chancellor:

“F**k the EU”.

Like it or not, but admit that the Americans are a smart people capable of accurately determining the “price” of a united Germany and a united Europe.

Senior Editor Gaither Stewart’s latest book is RECOLLECTION OF THINGS LEARNED: Remembering Socialism (Punto Press). His trilogy of novels a la Carré about Cold War-style espionage [The Trojan Spy, Lily Pad Roll, Time of Exile (forthcoming)] incorporate a lucid  panorama of what Western intel services do, and the criminal wrong-headedness of US Foreign Policy. Stewart is an expert in Eastern European culture.

Ex-CIA Official Proposes Assassination of Putin

August 29th, 2014 by Kit Daniels

In a recent op-ed, a former CIA official suggested the removal of Russian President Vladimir Putin, by assassination if necessary, should be the primary objective of the Obama administration in its strategy for Ukraine.

Herbert E. Meyer, who served as a Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration, said the goal of U.S. sanctions against Russia “should be to get the Russians who’ve been keeping Putin in power, or tolerating Putin in power, to throw that knockout punch.”

“If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us,” he stated.

To ensure Putin’s removal, Meyer suggested, the Obama administration should strike a wedge between the Russian business elite and the Kremlin that could serve as a catalyst for an attempt on Putin’s life.

“That’s why the sanctions will work if the president and his European counterparts will keep tightening the screws; if they keep making commerce more difficult for Russia’s serious business executives, for instance by blocking their access to capital, and if they keep making life more miserable for Russia’s playboy oligarchs, for instance by canceling their credit cards and denying landing rights to their private jets,”

he added.

“And if the president and European leaders keep telling these Russians – bluntly and publicly – that all this will end the moment Vladimir Putin leaves the Kremlin for good.”

The former CIA official is describing a centuries-old tool of statecraft in which a foreign power creates discontent between the nobles of another country and their ruler to ensure the eventual overthrow of that ruler.

But given today’s explosive increase in tensions between Russia and Ukraine, which could very well lead to another world war, Meyer’s suggestion is particularly disturbing considering is it likely that current Western intelligence officials also share similar views.

And the destabilization of the Russian government with the loss of Putin will only create chaos in the East, chaos which can be exploited by the global financial elite who hold no allegiance to any nationality.

“Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few, and this is no accident,” journalist Brandon Smith wrote.

After 17,000 buildings – including schools, hospitals, clinics and even ICU’s – have been destroyed in Gaza by Israeli troops using US-supplied missiles and warplanes, the reconstruction will cost many billions. It is assumed that both the US and Israel will bear the full costs of rebuilding the infrastructure after the incursion and will NOT expect either the United Nations, or the EU to pay.

As for the 1470 civilian killed by the Israelis, nothing can compensate for the result of this lethal military adventure. But action can be taken by the United Nations and the International Criminal court to indict those alleged guilty of war crime.

In addition to the extensive costs of reconstruction, it is now essential that both a deep sea port and an international airport are built in Gaza, to compete with Haifa and Tel Aviv, after over half a century of Israeli illegal occupation, blockades and protectionism.

If the Netanyahu government continues its obstruction to peace and continues its land-grabs in the Occupied Territories, then all bilateral trade between Israel and Europe should cease until such time as it decides to adhere to international law and to comply with the resolution of the United Nations.

A stunning new interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield conducted by Gary Franchi of the Next News Network has just been posted. This interview is the first video interview with Dr. Wakefield following the admission of scientific fraud by a top CDC scientist named Dr. William Thompson.

Earlier this week, Dr. Thompson went public with an historic confession, admitting the CDC knowingly conspired to bury the evidence that MMR vaccines caused a 340% increase in autism among African-American children.

“The autism community has been deceived for a period of 13 years,” says Dr. Wakefield in the interview.

“These children have gone untreated and relatively neglected by the government and others; the parents [were] dismissed, vilified and humiliated when they tried to say my child was damaged by this vaccine. …The CDC have been covering this up. It’s an utter disgrace. For me, it’s a sadness that this has come to pass. It’s a tragedy. Yes, it vindicates the [theory] that we put forward to the CDC originally… [the CDC] has been covering it up since 2001.”

More importantly, share this video everywhere in the name of saving children from vaccine violence. The corrupt, corporate-controlled mainstream media absolutely refuses to cover this story, hoping they can bury the truth about vaccines in exactly the same way the CDC buried the data.

Here’s another very important video to view, covering Dr. Thompson’s public confession of vaccine research fraud at the CDC:

Israel’s Operation Protective Edge (OPE) was well-planned premeditated aggression.

It had nothing to do with Hamas rockets. It wasn’t about crushing Palestine’s legitimate government.

Israel needs enemies. When none exist, they’re invented. They’re blamed for Israel’s crimes.

OPE was about preventing Palestinian self-determination. It was to maintain occupation harshness. It was to keep stealing Palestinian land.

It was to expand settlements exponentially. It was to control all valued parts of Judea and Samaria.

It was to keep Palestinians confined on isolated bantustans on worthless scrubland. It was to steal their resources.

It was to assure diaspora Palestinians don’t return. It was to maintain Gaza’s blockade while pretending otherwise when hostilities ended.

It was to have Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital. It was to undermine Fatah/Hamas unity.

It was to give Israel sole prerogative to commit high crimes against peace with impunity.

It was to show Palestinians they’re defenseless against overpowering Israeli might.

It was to wage aggressive wars any time against invented enemies for whatever reasons Israel invents.

It was to enlist popular homeland support for what demands condemnation.

Each side claimed victory. Netanyahu said Hamas was “hit hard and got none of its demands.”

He threatened an even tougher response should there be so much as a “sprinkle” of rocket fire from Gaza.

A late August Shiluv Millward Brown poll on whether Israelis support him showed he plunged from a record 82% high in July to 38% now.

Yedioth Ahronot is Israel’s largest circulation daily. According to columnist Alex Fishman:

“Both sides did not exactly want this campaign. Both sides made all possible errors dragging them into it, and both sides find themselves today returning to square one, where they were at the start of the warfare.”

Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida said:

“Gaza achieved victory because it has done what major armies failed to do. It forced the enemy to retreat.”

“We must know that no voice is louder than the voice of the resistance.”

Hamas political head Khaled Meshal said his organization has many rockets left. Tunnels remain.

“If necessary, if the negotiations fail, we will return to resistance until our goals are achieved,” he said.

Asked how he could claim victory after accepting the same Egyptian-brokered terms he rejected weeks earlier, he said:

“Our demands were just, but in the end we had the Palestinian demands on the one hand and the pain of Gaza’s civilian population on the other.”

“So we agreed to the cease-fire in the knowledge that the siege will be lifted, that the other issues like the seaport and airport will be on the negotiating table in another month, and that the weapon in the hands of the resistance are the guarantees that its goals, above all the building of an airport and seaport, along with the release of the prisoners, will be achieved.”

“This military campaign revived resistance as a realistic possibility for the Palestinian people.”

“This is not the end of the battle to liberate the land. We presented the Palestinian national issue and the siege of Gaza before the international community.”

“The (earlier) peace talks improved Israel’s image in the world, but now the resistance has exposed (its) true face.”

“Israel can no longer present itself as the victim. It has become a burden on the world.”

Meshal praised Palestinian “resistance forces,” saying:

“We shattered the idea of the (Israeli) army that never surrenders. That’s already happened before, but this time it happened to an unprecedented degree.”

“We succeeded in creating mutual, equal deterrence on the basis of pain vs. pain.”

As for disarming, he added:

“No power on earth can disarm the resistance. Israel is not interested in international decisions because Netanyahu is not interested in a political solution.”

Addressing the Israeli public, he said:

“Your leadership lies to you, and acts in the name of its self-interest to survive politically.”

“You need to understand that there is no security as long as the occupation goes on.”

“We are not enemies on account of religion. We respect every religion. Our enemy is the occupation.”

Days before the ceasefire, longtime Israeli collaborator Mahmoud Abbas met secretly with Netanyahu in Amman, Jordan.

It was their first face-to-face meeting since September 2010. No confirmation from either side followed. Netanyahu’s office declined to comment.

Senior PA official Nabil Shaath said Washington pressured Israel into halting hostilities even though terms announced omitted demanding Hamas disarm.

Days earlier, Netanyahu said Israel was pursuing a new diplomatic “horizon.” He declined to elaborate.

Last Sunday, Abbas said he would reveal a “surprise” diplomatic initiative Washington wouldn’t like. It won’t matter.

According to Shaath, the PA wants a Security Council resolution ending Israel’s occupation. It wants a timetable to accomplish it.

Given a certain US veto if this type resolution is presented, Palestinian officials will petition the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon for war crimes.

The ICC is a longtime Western imperial tool. It targets victims. Perpetrators like America and Israel operate freely.

They do so with impunity. Don’t expect this time to be different.

Throughout over seven weeks of conflict, Washington supported Israel’s killing machine.

Its posture belied its rhetorical highminded concern for human rights, democratic values and rule of law principles.

It showed Israel can commit high crimes against peace with impunity. Thousands of mostly civilian Palestinian casualties didn’t matter.

They attest to Israel’s barbarity. They’re considered legitimate targets. International law affirms otherwise.

Large parts of Gaza lie in ruins. Billions of reconstruction dollars are  needed. Where will funding come from?

How many years are required to complete an overwhelming job? How will affected Gazans cope in the meantime?

Will concern for them fade when headlines disappear? Will reconstruction matter after virtually certain future Israel aggression destroys what’s rebuilt?

Without unconditionally lifting Gaza’s siege, ending occupation, assuring Palestinian self-determination within June 1967 borders, and holding Israel fully accountable for genocidal mass murder and destruction, will anything else really matter?

After long denied justice, Palestinians remain isolated on their own. Western leaders able to help do nothing.

They support Israeli genocide. Palestinian suffering doesn’t matter. Premeditated Israeli aggression is considered self-defense.

Big Lies substitute for hard truths. Fundamental rights aren’t important. Wars are glorified in the name of peace.

Israel gets away with genocidal crimes of war and against humanity because nations able to act do nothing.

Expect nothing different this time. Business as usual continues.

Expect long denied Palestinian injustice to persist. Expect future Israeli aggression. Expect Palestinians blamed for its crimes.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

We noted 2 days after the Japanese earthquake that radiation from Fukushima could end up on the West Coast of North America. And see this.

We started tracking the radioactive cesium released by Fukushima within weeks of the accident.

In fact, U.S. nuclear authorities were extremely worried about west coast getting hit by Fukushima radiation … but publicly said it was safe.

We reported that Fukushima radiation spread worldwide.

And we’ve documented for years that the failure to test the potentially high levels of radiation hitting North America is a scandal.

Sadly, we were right to be worried …

The Journal Environmental Science & Technology – published by the American Chemical Society –reported last year that airborne levels of radioactive cesium were raised by 100 to 1,000 times (what scientists describe as two to three “orders of magnitude“):

Before the FDNPP accident, average 137Cs levels were typically of 1 μBq m−3 in Central Europe and lower average values (<0.3 μBq m−3) were characteristic of northern, western and southern Europe.

***

During the passage of contaminated air masses from Fukushima, airborne 137Cs levels were globally enhanced by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude.

Indeed, even hot particles and nuclear core fragments from Fukushima were found to have traveled all the way to Europe.

The French government radiation agency – IRSN – released a video of Fukushima cesium hitting the West Coast of North America.  EneNews displays a screenshot from the IRSN video, and quantifies the extreme cesium spikes:

  • Cesium-137 levels in 2010: 0.000001 mBq/m³ of Cs-137 (blue writing)
  • Cesium-137 levels in Mar. 2011: 1 to 10 mBq/m³ in Western U.S. (orange plume)
  • Cs-137 levels increased 1,000,000 – 10,000,000 times after Fukushima 

Levels on the West Coast were up to 500 times higher than estimated.  Cesium levels from Fukushima were higher than expected worldwide, including in the arctic region of Europe:

Radioactive cesium bioaccumulates in large fish and animals.

The radioactive half life of cesium 137 is usually 30 years. But scientists at the Savannah River National Laboratory say that the cesium at Chernobyl will persist in the environment between 5 and 10 times longer – between 180 and 320 years.

And the Fukushima accident has pumped out some entirely new forms of radioactive materials … in “glassy spheres“, buckyballsball-like spheres, and bound to organic matter.  Scientists don’t really know how long these new forms will last …

Continuing Media Silence on the Fate of Flight MH17

August 29th, 2014 by Stefan Steinberg

With a handful of exceptions, a shroud of silence has been drawn by the international media regarding the fate of Malaysian Airlines MH17, which crashed over Ukraine nearly six weeks ago.

Immediately after the plane crash on July 17, leading US officials, with Secretary of State John Kerry at the fore along with sections of the US and European media, alleged, without a shred of evidence, that the passenger jet had been shot down by a Russian missile fired by pro-Russian separatists operating in eastern Ukraine. The completely unfounded allegations were then used to create a frenzied political climate to justify the imposition of wide-ranging sanctions by the US and the European Union against Russia.

Since the crash there has been deliberate stalling on the part of Western authorities in releasing relevant information. At the start of this month Dutch investigators leading the inquiries announced they would release a preliminary report “in a few weeks.” Now, with only days before the end of the month, no such report has been issued. This is despite the fact that the Dutch co-ordinator for the struggle against terrorism admitted in parliament that the Dutch authorities already have extensive data from the black boxes and other sources in their possession.

One article which has raised questions regarding the silence surrounding the crash appeared recently in the German magazine Der Spiegel.

The magazine has played a particularly vile role in the US-led propaganda campaign to blame Russia for the crash. On the cover of its July 28 editionDer Spiegel featured photos of MH17 victims with the prominent red lettered text “Stop Putin Now!”. In its latest edition, the magazine again raises the banner of German militarism in a lead article deploring the state of the German army and arguing for a massive increase in military sending.

However, in one article on the crash, headlined “The strange silence of the investigators”, the magazine attempts to backtrack somewhat and at least intimate there are good reasons to doubt the official line put out by Washington and Brussels. The article refers to a letter sent to Barack Obama at the end of July by a group of former US intelligence officers. In their letter the group, known as VIPS, accused Secretary of State Kerry of attempting to use the crash to blacken Russia, recalling other blatant provocations by the Obama administration, such as the claim that Syria was responsible for chemical weapon attacks. The Obama administration has never responded to the allegations made in the VIPS letter.

The Spiegel article then goes on to quote reports in the Malaysian newspaperNew Straits Times, which charge Ukraine with responsibility for the crash, citing one journalist who writes: “It is farcical that the country known for overseeing the world’s most sophisticated and far-reaching surveillance capabilities has sunk to citing grainy YouTube videos to justify its policy decisions.”

Noting that Dutch authorities already have considerable information about the details of the crash which they have undoubtedly shared with their German counterparts, the Spiegel article warns that it is unlikely that the black box recordings will ever be released in full. The Dutch investigation team recently announced that there were alleged legal grounds for withholding evidence from the boxes.

The failure of the media to raise the issue of the fate of MH17 prompted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to query on Monday why the plane’s black box recordings had not been released publicly. It appears, Lavrov said, that apart from Russia, “everyone else has lost interest in the investigation.”

Lavrov also asked why Ukraine had not yet provided recordings of conversations between air traffic controllers in the nearby airport of Dnepropetrovsk. Kiev has up until now persistently refused to publish the recordings of the conversations between the MH17 pilot and Ukrainian air traffic controllers.

Lavrov noted that Russia had contacted the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the United Nations aviation agency, and offered to provide its own information on the crash, but noted that “so far there is nothing transparent to be seen there either.”

Lavrov concluded: “We must not allow the investigation of the MH17 crash to be manipulated into oblivion as already happened to investigations of many Ukrainian tragedies, including the sniper assault against civilians in Kiev in February, massacres in Odessa and Mariupol in May, and others.”

Bearing in mind the leading role played by the US in utilizing the crash of MH17 to create the conditions for a confrontation with Russia, there can be no doubt that the administration in Washington and US intelligence services are in close contact with the Dutch authorities and are complicit in the efforts to bury the truth about what really took place on July 17.

The Obama administration and NATO officials on Thursday escalated threats against Russia over the alleged incursion of two columns of Russian tanks and troops into eastern Ukraine. Moscow has denied accusations that its troops are actively involved in the country.

In an afternoon press conference, US President Barack Obama declared that Russian actions were further confirmation that Moscow was fomenting the unrest and has “routinely violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” While he refrained from characterizing Russia’s actions as an invasion, he said that it was a “continuation” of the sort of Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine that has been occurring for the last several weeks.

“These separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia,” Obama declared. “Throughout this process we’ve seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they’ve done.” The US president pledged “additional steps” to punish Moscow for supporting the separatists, including new economic sanctions coordinated with Europe.

In fact, it was not Russia that stoked the conflict in Ukraine but rather the United States, along with Germany, which funneled billions of dollars to opposition groups, backing a right-wing coup in February with the support of fascist forces. The White House is strongly backing the Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko as it carries out a brutal war against predominantly Russian-speaking cities in the east.

More than 2,249 people have been killed and more than 6,000 injured in military operations in the Donbass region of Ukraine. The American government has supported the military siege of two major European cities, Donetsk and Luhansk, cutting off electricity and running water to hundreds of thousands of civilians. Residential neighborhoods and hospitals have been subjected to artillery fire from Ukrainian armed forces.

The shelling of the eastern cities of Donetsk by Ukrainian forces continued on Thursday, injuring 15 people and destroying several homes and businesses. Over the course of the previous day, 16 civilians were killed and a further 22 injured by continued shelling.

The latest developments in eastern Ukraine have opened up a new front in the conflict in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian armed forces and further raised the possibility of war between the United States and Russia.

While stating that “we are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian problem,” Obama provocatively declared that “a number of those states who are close” to Ukraine and Russia are members of NATO, “and we take our Article Five commitments to defend each other very seriously—and that includes the smallest NATO members as well as the largest.”

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe joined NATO, including Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Since the coup in February, the US and NATO have moved to increase their military presence in all these countries. Article Five of the treaty states that an armed attack on any NATO country is considered an attack on all members.

As a means of justifying a further military buildup of NATO forces in Eastern Europe and the imposition of ever more harsh economic sanctions, the United States and its European allies have very consciously sought, at every point, to force Russia to respond.

The United States is seeking to turn Ukraine into a NATO outpost for threatening Russia. This is highlighted by the fact that Poroshenko will be the only non-NATO head of state attending the NATO summit in Wales next week. Proshenko is also scheduled to meet with President Obama at the White House next month.

These military moves have been coupled with the implementation of harsh austerity measures in Ukraine itself, targeting the entire working class.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin called Thursday for pro-Russian separatists to open up a corridor to allow Ukrainian troops to flee into Russia. Putin called on the rebels to, “avoid meaningless victims and provide them with the opportunity to freely withdraw from the battlefield area.” At least five Ukrainian National Guard battalions were reported to have been surrounded since Tuesday, when pro-Russian separatists engaged in a fierce battle to retake the town of Ilovaisk.

NATO released satellite images that it claims shows Russian artillery and other equipment well inside Ukrainian territory. A senior NATO officer, Brigadier General Nico Tak, stated that the images, “provide additional evidence that Russian combat soldiers, equipped with heavy weapons, are operating inside Ukraine’s sovereign territory.”

One image purportedly shows Russian self-propelled artillery moving on a road near Krasnodon, Ukraine on August 21 just across the border from the Russian city of Donetsk. Another image shows the same artillery set up in firing positions outside of Krasnodon, while the several other images released by NATO show artillery and military units deployed on the Russian side of the border.

Tak also said that NATO had evidence that more than 1,000 Russian soldiers were fighting with the rebels in Ukraine. Aleksandr Zakharchenko, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, said on Thursday that between three and four thousand Russian volunteers are fighting alongside the Ukrainian separatists, and that many of these were military men on leave. He stated, “There is no secret that among the volunteers from Russia there are many military men. They are fighting together with us because they understand that it’s their duty.”

Poroshenko responded to the developments in the east by canceling a scheduled trip to Turkey. “The situation is certainly extremely difficult and nobody is going to simplify it. Still, it is controlled enough for us to refrain from panic,” Poroshenko said.

Ukrainian security council spokesman Andriy Lysenko accused Moscow of sending troops and tanks across the border in a bid to create a land bridge to the territory of Crimea, which Russia annexed in March. Lysenko also announced that the security council had made a decision to reintroduce compulsory military service starting in the fall.

By hook or by crook or by carrots or sticks, the US and its NATO and regional allies will not stop targeting Syria and Iran until they vanquish both. The crisis in Iraq is just a new phase in those objectives.

The anti-government forces ravaging Iraq and Syria are mostly the same overzealous or gung-ho head choppers, rapists, extortionists, thugs, and cannibals that were pillaging and senselessly devastating the Syrian countryside with the aim of occupying Damascus in 2011. These ever morphing and constantly name changing groups are not new at all. They have just been rebranded.

Some may recall the leaks about the training facilities and secret headquarters that the US and its allies erected for the Syrian insurgents in Jordan, where the buffoon King Abdullah II pretends to manage his discontent subjects while the US and Israel really run the show. The groups marauding Iraq have been trained in these not-so-secret Jordanian facilities.

But this is where the plot thickens. The US was using sticks for the last few years against the Syrians and Syria’s staunch ally Iran. That has changed. Poisonous carrots are now in use.

Dividing Iraq

It just so happens that the Irbil-based autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government made a de facto military annexation of Kirkuk. The Kurdistan Regional Government did this by sending its peshmerga forces into the oil-rich city when the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/DAISH) caliphate was being carved out of northern Iraq, and northern Iraq was in disarray as the Iraqi military and security forces were repositioning themselves.

What is very telling is that there were very few clashes, if any, between the peshmerga and the DAISH/ISIL forces. Iraq was being carved into three chunks. Although the process did not take place overnight, the country was literally divided into an autonomous Kurdistan region waiting in the wings to declare its independence from Iraq, a pseudo-caliphate enveloping the areas of Iraq predominately inhabited by Sunni Muslim Arabs, and the federal territories enveloping the predominately Shiite Muslim Arab parts of Iraq in a matter of days. This division fell exactly into line with America’s Biden Plan and Israel’s Yinon Plan.

It also so happened that the mendacious Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, said that the Iraqi Kurds were preparing to declare their independence. It was no mere coincidence that Israel also announced it was high time for Iraq to dissolve with the secession of Iraqi Kurdistan. No wonder there were reports from Baghdad that Israeli forces were assisting both the ISIL/DAISH forces and the Kurdish peshmerga in northern Iraq.

Nor should it be a surprise that American and Israeli weapons have been reported to be used by the pseudo-caliphates forces.

When the pseudo-caliphate was being carved in Iraq, the US declared that it was going to openly aid the insurgents in Syria. Looking past the Orwellian doublespeak, what this meant was that the US was going to help the pseudo-caliphate. The calculus is simple: insurgents in Syria are the same people that have helped takeover Mosul and carve the pseudo-caliphate in Iraq against the people of Iraq, particularly the Christians.

 

AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye

 

Sending weapons to help or to divide Iraq?

When it was declared that the not-so-covert US-supported pseudo-caliphate in northern Iraq was fighting the Kurdistan Regional Government, the US and its NATO partners wasted no time in calling for more arms shipments to be sent to Iraq. Not wishing to be indicated, the US let France take the lead in this.

The trickery lies here. Instead of sending arms to the national military of Iraq, the calls were for sending weapons to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Under the cover of a new crisis in Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government is being militarily armed and supported so that it can break away from Iraq.

When the US started bombing Iraq, it was not going after Abu Baker Al-Baghdadi’s forces. No man’s land was being bombed. The Pentagon was demarcating northern Iraq between the pseudo-caliphate and Iraqi Kurdistan. In other words, boundaries were being drawn out for both sides.

Destroying plurality and diversity

Consistently in the backdrop of the crises in Iraq and Syria, there has been persecution of minorities and deliberate sectarianism aimed at creating sedition. It is no coincidence that Yazidis and Christians are systematically being targeted in Iraq, just like how Christians, Alawies, and Druze have been targeted in Syria.

It should be mentioned that while minority groups are being systematically targeted, the majority of people being killed by groups like ISIL/DAISH, Al-Nusra, and the Free Syrian Army are actually the innocent Sunni Muslims that oppose these troublesome militant groups.

The Foreign Minister of Lebanon, Gebran Bassil, made an interesting connection between the Israeli war crimes against Palestinian civilians of Gaza and the ISIL/DAISH murder of Iraqis in Mosul. For Foreign Minister Bassil, himself a Maronite Catholic Christian, the connection was clear. Both Israel and ISIL/DAISH are working to redraw the ancient region by destroying all traces of plurality and diversity. This is why Bassil and the Lebanese government sent a request to the International Criminal Court to investigate the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians and the crimes of the ISIL/DAISH.

Using the crisis in Iraq to co-opt Iran and to attack Syria?

The US is still holding a stick behind its back. Washington could use its intervention in Iraq to open a gateway for intervention against Syria as a means of shifting the balance of power against the Syrian government.

Washington is now talking about intervening in Syria to bomb the same troublesome groups that it is supposedly fighting in Iraq. Pentagon military honcho, General Martin Dempsey, has stated that the ISIL/DAISH “cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria” on August 21, 2014. Speaking about the Pentagon strikes in Iraq, General Dempsey stated“Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

At the same time Washington, London, Paris, and their cohorts are dangling carrots too. The US and its allies are talking about cooperating with Iran and Syria to fight the groups that the US and its allies have created and unleashed in Iraq and Syria.

 

AFP Photo / Ahmed Deeb AFP Photo / Ahmed Deeb

 

The Independent newspaper in London had this to report about the British government’s position on August 17, 2014: “Britain must prepared to ally itself with Iran to combat the ‘shared threat’ of Sunni Islamist extremists in Iraq and Syria who want to create ‘a terrorist state’ that could extend to “the shores of the Mediterranean,” David Cameron has said.”

What the US and its allies are dangling in front of Tehran and Damascus is not fully known yet.

Cooperation, however, is a poisoned chalice that neither Iran nor Syria should drink from. The whole world knows what happened to Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya when Tripoli cooperated with the US, Britain, and France. Cooperation was used to infiltrate the Jamahiriya and to buy out officials. In the end it ended up in regime change in Tripoli and the murder of Colonel Qaddafi by NATO-controlled Libyan militants.

Nor should it be discounted that Washington wants to turn Tehran against Moscow. Iran and Russia are important partners for one another in bypassing sanctions, and the US is very unhappy with the oil-for-goods deal that has been authored by the two sides.

So on the one hand Washington holds its stick whereas on the other hand it dangles its poisonous carrots.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hussein Amir-Abdollahian, however, has dismissed the chatter about cooperation with the US and its allies, saying that Iran sees no need to cooperate with the US and British governments to fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq that both the US and Britain have helped create.

This article was originally published by RT on August 28, 2014.

Approximately four months after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) disappeared in March 2014, while en route from the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur to the Chinese capital of Beijing, another incident took place with a Malaysian passenger plane. This time Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), en route from the Dutch capital of Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was shot down on July 17, 2014 over the contested airspace of the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic. The incident took place over Torez near the Russian-Ukrainian border while the authorities in Kiev were busy militarily assaulting the separatist armed forces of Novorossiya, that is the soldiers of the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic and Donetsk’s sister-breakaway republic in East Ukraine, the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic.

Blaming Russia and the Donetsk People’s Republic for the MH17 Crash

The downing of MH17 in East Ukraine was quickly blamed on the Donetsk People’s Republic. One way or another, the Russian Federation was also blamed by the puppet authorities in Kiev and its supporters in the US and the European Union. Salivating with another opportunity to demonize Russia and justify its existence, NATO also pointed the finger in the same direction towards Moscow. As part of the continuous anti-Russian hysteria, NATO governments and media networks lined up to blame Russia for the downing of the Malaysian passenger plane over Donetsk.

Starting in late-February 2014 with the EuroMaidan coup, for the last six months or half a year, all types of accusations have been made and directed towards Russia and its federal government in Moscow. Blaming the Kremlin for the attack on MH17 was just a continuation of the Russophobic trend that Washington and its European Union allies had unleashed with the simmering crisis in Ukraine.

Valentyn Oleksandrovych Nalyvaichenko, the post-EuroMaidan head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU/SBU) and an Orangist that left Viktor Yushchenko to join Vitali Klitschko in 2012, claimed that the attack MH17 was a Russian-linked false flag that went wrong. Interfax Information Service Group’s branch in Ukraine reported on August 9, 2014 that the SSU/SBU chief claimed that the Donetsk People’s Republic was planning on bombing a Russian airliner from Aeroflot that was supposed to fly south to the Mediterranean Sea from Moscow to the Greek Cypriot city of Larnaca. The SSU/SBU released an official statement on August 7, 2014 claiming that the plan was to give the Russian Federation a pretext for invading and occupying Ukraine.

The US government and its high-ranking officials joined their puppets in Kiev in trying to ultimately lay the blame on Russia for the downing of MH17. US officials made numerous public statements that were designed to pin the blame on the Russian Federation for the MH17’s crash. The US government launched an international information campaign in this regard that utilized its diplomatic missions, the internet, social media, and the mainstream media networks.

When Washington was challenged for proof about Russian involvement and the source of the attack on MH17, in the tradition of US Secretary of State Colin Powel’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq presentation at the United Nations the US government presented doctored evidence which was debunked immediately. The US government released doctored satellite images that from an examination of the location of physical objects and atmospheric conditions were clearly taken days after MH17 was shot down. After embarrassingly being exposed for presenting false evidence to support its claims, Washington refused to provide anymore of its so-called evidence under the justification of not revealing data sources. In reality, Washington was lying again and had no evidence to support the ridiculous claims that Moscow had masterminded the downing of MH17. Not long after this, US officials admitted that they had no tangible evidence against Russia. Then they and their NATO allies began to look like they were losing interest in even investigation the MH17 crash in Donetsk.

The Facts Come into View: What were Kiev’s Fighter Jets Doing?

The narrative of the US and the puppet authorities in Kiev was feeble and horribly put together from the start. Not only was there an absence of evidence that the Donetsk People’s Republic or Russia were behind the attack on MH17, which killed all two hundred and eighty-three passengers and fifteen crew members on board (a total of two hundred and ninety-eight people), but the evidence indicated the US-supported puppet Ukrainian authorities in Kiev as the culprits responsible for the downing of the Malaysian passenger jet.

Within moments before the MH17 crash, a Spaniard employee working as an air traffic controller at Ukraine’s largest airport, Borispol (Boryspil) International Airport (not to be confused with Kiev International Airport in Zhulyany, southwest Kiev), using his Twitter account (Carlos @spainbuca),refuted the claims of the Ukrainian puppet authorities in Kiev and their backers in Washington. Carlos would write at 11:48 am on July 17, 2014 that MH17 was «escorted by 2 fighters of Ukraine until minutes before disappearing from the radar» screen at the air traffic control tower. What Carlos meant by fighters was Ukrainian fighter jets. Carlos also wrote, at 1:29 pm, that the Interior Ministry of Ukraine, which is heavily politicized and under the control of the ultra-nationalist forces behind the EuroMaidan coup, knew what the Ukrainian fighter jets were doing next to MH17 whereas the Ukrainian military knew very little and, at 1:36 pm, that the Ukrainian military confirmed that Kiev had downed the Malaysian passenger jet (please see the annex for what was exactly written). It would only be at 3:17 pm that the air traffic control tower would be told officially that a missile had shot MH17 down over Donetsk. Carlos wrote at 4:06 pm that Ukrainian military air control officials had said that the missile was one of their own. Because of his revelations, eventually the Spaniard’s Twitter account was blocked and deleted.

Contradicting the rhetorical claims of Washington and its puppets in Kiev, the federal government of Russia provided valid data that could be analyzed with a high level of confidence. Among the data that Moscow produced, was information that a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jet had intercepted MH17. The puppet authorities in Ukraine declined to explain why a Ukrainian military jet had been sent to intercept MH17. While calling for an international investigation to be conducted by an impartial team from the United Nations, Moscow also called for the puppet authorities in Kiev to publicly release the communication records that took place between MH17 and Ukrainian air traffic control.

Even the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has been negatively biased towards Russia during the entire crisis in Ukraine, contradicts the allegations of the US government. Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian citizen of Ukrainian descent, investigating the crash as an OSCE monitor contradicted the claims made by the US-supported puppet authorities in Kiev. The OSCE monitor reported that no missile was used against MH17 from the OSCE’s initial studies. Not only was no missile used, Bociurkiw mentions that it looks like MH17 looked like it was downed by bullets. In Michael Bociurkiw’s own words, he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) the following on July 29, 2014: «There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire».

As soon as photographs of the crash became available, it was noticed by many people that it looked like the Malaysian jet has been fired on (in addition to any possible missile penetration). Specifically, the MH17’s cockpit looks like it was fired at from both sides, with both entry and exit bullet holes. This means that the MH17 was either shot at from two different angels or that the ammunition that was fired on it ricocheted outwards. Taken that the ammunition of the Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 is cannon ammunition is armour-piercing and made to destroy heavy armoured military vehicles, this makes a lot of sense.

OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw has been criticized for using non-technical language, specifically referring to thirty millimeter caliber cannon ammunition as «machine-gun fire» while talking about the MH17 attack. The point, however, should not be lost. It looks like a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jet had fired on the MH17 (in addition to any possible missile penetration of the Malaysian passenger plane). All the evidence about the downing of MH17 points in the direction of the authorities in Kiev.

Hiding the Facts via Information Censorship

The voice of Carlos, contradicting the US and its allies, would be just one of many. The Information Telegraph Agency of Russia (ITAR-TASS) also confirmed his story on July 18, 2014. ITAR-TASS reported as follows: «This information is confirmed by eyewitnesses in the Donetsk region who saw Ukrainian warplanes near the passenger jet. They say they heard sounds of powerful blasts and saw a Ukraine warplane shortly before the crash.» Even the Russian-language service of the state-owned British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News would corroborate the account put forward by Carlos and eyewitnesses in East Ukraine. The BBC’s Olga Ivshina (Ivshyna) interviewed four residence of the area near the crash, which all said that they saw warplanes next to MH17. One eyewitness told Ivshina that the military jet «was flying under it, we could see it. It was going underneath the civilian one».

The BBC would censor Olga Ivshina’s report, because it contradicted the separatist missile attack narrative and it fit perfectly with what the Spanish air traffic controller and the Russian government claimed. After being caught red handed, the BBC responded to deleting its own report and put back a modified version of it on July 25, 2014. Yan Leder, the managing editor for BBC News’ Russian service explained that there was no «self-censorship» and that the report was removed as it contained «mistakes» and was not in «compliance of the editorial values of BBC.»

The BBC’s censorship was only the tip of the iceberg. Facebook and Twitter began to block posts linked to articles about MH17 and the claims made by Carlos. Posts involving what happened to MH17 over East Ukraine were becoming unavailable or failing to open on social media. Enough people noticed and complained about this that warnings and explanations were offered about why the posts about MH17 were being blocking.

Tacitly, Matthew Peckham provides the dubious rationale of social media for restricting posts in a Time article titled «Facebook and Twitter Users: Don’t Fall for MH17 ‘Actual Footage’ Scams» on July 22, 2014. Peckham reports the following: «If you run across Facebook pages touting pictures of Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash victims, or tweets linking to reports on the disaster, warning: they may be fakes, harbor malware or redirect you to pornographic websites.» Then his article tacitly explains that such links have been removed from Facebook. In other words, the rationale being presented is that posts covering the MH17 crash can be censored or blocked to protect readers from scammers, malware, and software viruses.

Despite the reasoning behind any possible blocking of articles and posts about MH17, the rationale given does not explain why Carlos was censored or why Twitter deleted his account (Carlos @spainbuca). The Spaniard would also do an interview with RT en Español (RT Spanish) or RT Actualidad from Madrid on May 8, 2014. Hiding his identity because of death threats he had received in Ukraine, the Spanish air traffic controller would explain that he and his family were deported from Ukraine to Spain by the puppet authorities in Kiev.

The US is the one that Downs Passenger Planes, Not Russia

The US government is the one that attacks and downs civilian passenger planes, either directly with its own military forces or through state-sponsored terrorism. When US Secretary of State John Kerry was pointing the finger at Russia, no one asked him about Cuban (Cubana de Aviación) Flight 455 (CU455) and Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655). While flying from Barbados to Jamaica, CU455 was brought down on October 6, 1976 by a CIA-linked double C-4 bomb attack. IR655, on the other hand, was shot down by a US warship over Iranian territory, while flying on its regular route from Tehran to Dubai in the UAE, on July 3, 1988.

The bombing of the CU455 was carried out by the US-supported and CIA-trained Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU). CORU also worked out of US territory and all its actions were coordinated with the US government. Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles, and Michael Vernon Townley, the key figures involved are known to have been financed by the CIA and to have worked with it and other US agencies in a terrorist campaign against Cuba aimed at securing regime change in Havana. Townley as a professional assassin for the US helped kill Latin American figures opposing US influence in their countries.

Although the US claims that it was not involved, it has been behind a terrorist campaign that has been attacking Cuban infrastructure after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. The Cubans reacted by reporting the US to the United Nations in 1960 and by providing the United Nations Security Council with detailed records of multiple US-sponsored terrorist attacks, which included the names of registered pilots, plane identification numbers, data on the flight routes coming from the US, and physical evidence. Washington, however, continued to deny that it was involved in the terrorist attacks on the Cubans. Not only did the US continue to lie, but it launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

The terrorist bombing of CU455 would be a national tragedy for all Cuban society. After winning gold medals for their country, Cuba, at the 1976 Central American and Caribbean Championships, all twenty-four members of the entire Cuban national junior fencing team would be killed in CU455. Most of the Cuban fencers were teenagers. The other passengers were Cuban fishing and sports officials and Guyanese medical students going to Cuba to study medicine.

IR655 was shot down directly by the USS Vincennes in a clear act of aggression against a passenger airliner. The attack on IR655 took place in Iranian territory as the airplane was flying through Iranian airspace towards Dubai. All two hundred and ninety passengers and sixteen crew members were killed.

In both cases the US government lied or provided excuses about what happened. Washington’s actions, however, spell its position and intentions out clearly. Despite the US government’s shameless claims not to have supported the bombing of CU455, the US gave asylum and sanctuary to the figures behind the murder of all seventy-eight passengers onboard the Cuban passenger plane. In regards to IR655,the crew of the USS Vincennes was awarded for their ship’s actions and received combat-action ribbons for the tour of the Vincennes in the Persian Gulf. Captain (N) William C. Rogers III was awarded the Legion of Merit for his service as the commanding naval officer of the Vincennes from 1987 to 1989 whereas Lieutenant-Commander Scott Lustig, the warships’ air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal for «quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure.»

Lie after lie, the modus operandi of the US government is the same. How much credence can people give to John Kerry and the US government when they claimed that the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack on Ghouta in late-2013, but the facts proved that it was the US-supported insurgents that were behind the chemical attack?

Minutes before reporting about the Ukrainian military’s involvement, at 11:13 am on July 17, 2014, Carlos wrote on Twitter that he was wondering why foreign personnel entered his air traffic control tower with Kiev authorities to gather information. The Spaniard later reported at 12:00 pm, interestingly minutes after the military authorities in Kiev had notified his air traffic control tower that MH17 was downed over Donetsk, that the air traffic control tower was filled with foreign personnel. Who were these foreign personnel? Most probably they were from NATO countries and, more specifically, from the US. There is no question that the US had a role in the downing of MH17; at the very minimum Washington has knowingly and criminally worked to distort the picture of what happened to MH17. It is also important to note that Carlos described divisions among the Ukrainian soldiers in Kiev through what appeared to be upset and disgusted faces by those soldiers who reported that Kiev was responsible for the downing of MH17 whereas the Ukrainian military personnel and authorities accompanied by foreigners were busy lying and trying to spin the attack on MH17. The downing of MH17 is not the crime of Ukraine, but an act committed by US and EU proxies, embezzlers, and fanatics.

One way or another, the US government and the European Union do not have clean hands. The US accuses others of committing the actions that it itself commits. It is not Russia that bombs civilian passenger airplanes, but the United States. History is a witness to this.

Commemorative photos of the victims of the terrorist attack on CU455; notice the CIA is mentioned in the banner.

 A photo of the victims of the US downing of IR655; a large portion of the victims were children.


ANNEX: CHRONOLOGY OF TWITTER COMMENTS BY CARLOS ON JULY 17, 2014

Source: @spainbuca

• The Tweets (Twitter comments) are in original Spanish followed by translations.

• The time is presumed to be Eastern European Time (EET)

• The time is given in both 24-hour and 12-hour clock formats

10:21/10:21 AM

Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos

Kiev Authorities, trying to make seem like an attack by pro-Russians

10:24/10:24 AM

Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros

Pay attention! It can be a downing of Malaysia Airlines B777 in Ukraine, 280 passengers

10:25/10:25 AM

Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba

Careful! Kiev has what it sought

10:25/10:25 AM

Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev

They have returned to take the control tower in Kiev

10:27/10:27 AM

El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado

The Malaysia Airlines B777 airplane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed

10:30/10:30 AM

Avión derribado, derribados, derribado no accidente

«Airplane shot down, shot down, shot down, no accident»

10:31/10:31 AM

Kiev, tiene lo que buscaba, lo dije en los primeros tw, kiev es responsable @ActualidadRT

Kiev has what it wanted, I said in the first tw [Tweet], Kiev is responsible @ ActualidadRT

10:35/10:35 AM

Un accidente muy normal no es, no están amenazando en la misma torre del aeropuerto de kiev,

An accident that is not quite normal, they are threatening us in the same tower of Kiev airport»

10:35/10:35 AM

Nos van a quitar, nuestros tlf y demás de un momento a otro

We will take from our tel. [telephones] and others stuff at any moment

10:38/10:35 AM

Antes de que me quiten el tlf o me rompan la cabeza, derribado por Kiev

Before they remove my phone or they break my head, shot down by Kiev

11:12/11:12 AM

Nosotros tenemos la confirmación. Avión derribado, la autoridad de kiev, ya tiene la información, derribado, estamos tranquilos ahora

We have confirmation. Airplane downed, Kiev authorities already got the information, downed, we are calm now

11:13/11:13 AM

Que hace personal extranjero con autoridades de kiev en la torre? Recopilando toda la información

What are doing foreigner personnel doing with Kiev authorities in the tower? Gathering all the information

11:15/11:15 AM

Cuando sea posible sigo escribiendo

When possible I keep writing

11:48/11:48 AM

El avión B 777 voló escoltado por 2 cazas de ukraine hasta minutos antes, de desaparecer de los radares,

The B777 airplane flew escorted by 2 fighter [jets] of Ukraine until minutes before disappearing from the radar, [sic.]

11:54/11:54 AM

Sí las autoridades de kiev, quieren decir la verdad, esta recogido 2 cazas volaron muy cerca minutos antes , no lo derribo un caza

If Kiev authorities, want to tell the truth, it is recorded that 2 jet fighters flew very close minutes before, was not downed by a fighter

12:00/12:00 PM

Nada más desaparecer el avión B 777 de Malaysia Airlines la autoridad military de kiev nos informo del derribo, como lo sabían?

Just as the Malaysia Airlines B777 airplane disappeared the Kiev military authority informed us of the downing, how did they know?

12:00/12:00 PM

A los 7:00 minutos se notificó el derribo, más tarde se tomó la torre nuestra con personal extranjero q siguen aquí

7:00 minutes after crash was reported, our tower was overtaken with foreigner staff, they are still here

12:01/12:01 PM

En los radares esta todo recogido, para los incrédulos, derribado por kiev, aquí lo sabemos y control aéreo militar también

All this is gathered in radars, for unbelievers, shot down by kiev [sic.], here we know it and military air traffic control also [knows]

13:15/1:15 PM

Aquí los mandos militares manejan y admiten que militares a otras órdenes, pudieron ser, pero no, los pro-rusos

Here the military commanders administer and suppose it could be the military following other orders, but could be the pro-Russians

13:29/1:29 PM

El ministro del interior si conocía que, hacían los cazas en la zona, el ministro de defensa no,

Interior minister knew what the fighters were doing in the area, the defence minister did not.

13:31/1:31 PM

Militares confirman que fue ukraine, pero se sigue sin saber de donde vino la orden

Military confirms that it was Ukraine, but still does not know where the order came from

13:36/1:36 PM

Hace dias lo dije aquí, militares de kiev querían alzarse contra el actual presidente, esto puede ser una forma, a las órdenes de timoshenko

Days ago I said here, kiev [sic. ]military wanted to rise against the current president [Petro Poroshenko], this may be a way [to oust him], ordered by [Yulia] Tymoshenko

13:38/1:38 PM

Los cazas volaron cerca del 777, hasta 3 minutos antes de desaparecer de los radares, solo 3 minutos

The fighters flew close to 777, up to 3 minutes before disappearing from the radar, just 3 minutes

13:43/1:43 PM

Se cierra el espacio aéreo

Airspace closed

13:45/1:45 PM

Se cierra el espacio aéreo, por miedo a más derribos

Airspace is closed, more downings feared

15:17/3:17 PM

Control militar entrega ahora mismo de forma oficial que el avión fue derribado por misil

Military control now officially [say] the plane was shot down by missile

15:23/ 3:23 PM

El informe oficial firmado por las autoridades militares de control de kiev ya lo tiene el gobierno,,,, , derribado

«Government has the official report signed by the military control authorities in kiev [sic.],,, , [sic.] [the airplane was] blown»

15:26/3:26 PM

En el informe se indica de donde abría salido el misil, y se especifica que no proviene de las autodefensa en las zonas rebeldes

The report indicates where the missile had originated, and specified it is not self-defence from the rebel areas

15:34/3:35 PM

Los radares militares si recogieron los datos del misil lanzado al avión, los radares civiles no

Military radar collected data from missile fired to the plane, civilian radars did not

15:36/ 3:36 PM

Los altos mandos militares no ordenaron el lanzamiento del misil, alguien se le fue la mano en nombre de ukraine

The military high command did not give the order to fire the missile, someone did it in the name of ukraine [sic.]

15:38/3:38 PM

Para el que no lo sepa, digamos así, hay militares a las órdenes del ministro de defensa y militares a las órdenes del ministro del interior

For those who do not know, let us say, there are soldiers under the orders of the defence minister and soldiers under the orders of the minister of interior

15:38/ 3:38 PM

Los militares a las órdenes del ministro del interior conocían en cada momento lo que sucedió

The soldiers under the orders of minister of interior knew what happened the whole time

16:06/4:06 PM

Mandos militares aquí (ATC) torre de control, confirman que el misil es del ejercito de ukraine,

Military commanders here (ATC) control tower, confirm that the missile is from the army of [sic.] ukraine,

16:07/4:07 PM

Mandos militares que si lo sabían y otros mandos que no,

«[There are] military commanders that knew it and others that did not,

16:08/4:08 PM

290 personas inocentes muertas. Por una guerra inútil, donde el patriotismo se compra con dinero

290 innocent people dead. What a useless war, where patriotism is bought with money

16:09/4:09 PM

La forma de tomar la torre de control minutos después sabiendo todo los detalles, rápido nos hizo pensar que habían sido ellos

The way the control tower was taken minutes after and knowing all the details, quickly made us think that they [did it]

16:10/4:10 PM

La cara de los militares que llegaron más tarde diciendo pero que habéis echo, no dejo dudas

«The faces of the soldiers who came later saying [what you just did], no chance for doubts»

16:12/4:12 PM

Es tal la decadencia que los militares acompañados de extranjeros que llegaron primero nos llegaron a pedir que dijéramos su versión

Such is the decadence that the soldiers who came first accompanied by foreigners came to us asking us to tell their version [of the MH17’s downing]

16:13/4:16 PM

Nuestra respuesta, fue, estos radares no recogen el lanzamiento de misiles, los militares si, ya no quedaban dudas

Our response was, these radars do not collect the launching of missiles, the military ones does, there were no doubts

The latest Washington lie, this one coming from NATO, is that Russia has invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops and self-propelled artillery.  

How do we know that this is a lie?  Is it because we have heard nothing but lies about Russia from NATO, from US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, from assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, from Obama and his entire regime of pathological liars, and from the British, German, and French governments along with the BBC and the entirety of the Western media?

This, of course, is a good reason for knowing that the latest Western propaganda is a lie.  Those who are pathological liars don’t suddenly start telling the truth.

 But there are even better rasons for understanding that Russia has not invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops.

One reason is that Putin has invested heavily in diplomacy backed by unprovocative behavior.  He would not risk his bet on diplomacy by sending in troops too few in number to have a decisive effect on the outcome.

Another reason is that if Putin decides he has no alternative to sending the Russian military to protect the Russian residents in eastern and southern Ukraine, Putin will send in enough troops to do the job quickly as he did in Georgia when the American and Israeli trained Georgian army invaded South Ossetia and was destroyed in a few hours by the Russian response.  If you hear that 100,000 Russian troops accompanied by air cover have invaded Ukraine, it would be a more believable claim.

A third reason is that the Russian military does not need to send troops into Ukraine in order to stop the bombing and artillery shelling of the Russian populations by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.  The Russian air force can easily and quickly destroy the Ukrainian air force and artillery and, thereby, stop the Ukrainian attack on the secessionist provinces.

 It was only two weeks ago that a fabricated report spread by the UK Guardian and the BBC that a Russian armored convoy entered Ukraine and was destroyed by the Ukrainian Military. And two weeks prior to that we had the hoax of the satellite images allegedly released by the US State Department that the corrupt US ambassador in Kiev spread around the world on social media allegedly showing that Russian forces were firing into Ukraine. One or two weeks from now we will have another lie, and another a week or two after that, and so on.

The cumulative effect of lie piled upon lie for most people is to build the view that the Russians are up to no good.  Once this view is established, Western governments can take more serious moves against Russia.

The alleged entry of 1,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine has been declared by NATO Brigadier General Niko Tak to be a “significant escalation in Russia’s military interference in Ukraine.”  The champion liar Samantha Power told the US Security Council that “Russia has to stop lying.” The UK ambassador to the UN said that Russia was guilty of “a clear violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory.” UK prime minister Cameron warned Russia of “further consequences.”  German chancellor Merkel announced that there would be more sanctions. A German Security Council advisor declared that “war with Russia is an option.” Polish foreign minister Sikorski called it Russian aggression that required international action. French president Hollande declared Russia’s behavior to be “intolerable.”  Ukraine’s security council imposed mandatory conscription.

 This suicidal drive toward war with Russia by Europe’s leaders is based entirely on a transparent lie that 1,000 Russian troops crossed into Ukraine

 Of course the Western media followed in lock-step. The BBC, CNN, and Die Welt are among the most reckless and irresponsible.

 The mountain of lies piled up by Western governments and media has obscured the true story.  The US government orchestrated the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and imposed a US puppet in Kiev.  Washington’s puppet government began issuing threats and committing violent acts against the Russian populations in the former Russian territories that Soviet leaders attached to Ukraine.  The Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine resisted the threat brought to them by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.

 Washington continually accuses the Russian government of supporting the people in the territories who have voted their separation from Ukraine.  There would be no war, Washington alleges, except for Russian support.  But, of course, Washington could easily stop the violence by ordering its puppet government in Kiev to stop the bombing and shelling of the former Russian provinces.  If Russia can tell the “separatists” not to fight, Washington can tell Kiev not to fight.

The only possible conclusion from the facts is that Washington is determined to involve Europe in a war with Russia or at least in an armed standoff in order to break up Europe’s political and economic relations with Russia.

Europe’s leaders are going along with this because European countries, except for Charles de Gaulle’s France, have not had independent foreign policies since the end of World War II. They follow Washington’s lead and are well paid for doing so.

The inability of Europe to produce independent leadership dooms Russian President Putin’s diplomacy to failure.  If European capitals cannot make decisions independently of Washington, there is no scope for Putin’s diplomacy.

Notice that the very day after Putin met with Washington’s Ukrainian vassal in an effort to resolve the situation, the new lie of Russian invasion was issued in order to ensure that no good can come of the meeting in which Putin invested his time and energy.

Washington’s only interest is in hegemony.  Washington has no interest in resolving the situation that Washington itself created in order to bring discomfort and confusion to Russia.  With the caveat that the situation could be resolved by Ukrainian economic collapse, otherwise the longer Putin waits to resolve the situation by force, the more difficult the task will be.

“The aim, of the unfolding events, – is an internal Slavic war, the final solution to the Russian question.”

The events in Ukraine and around the Crimea – “dust” from a long-running project – are part of a plan to eliminate Russia as the only barrier to the North Atlantic elites scheme to dominate the world. Those are the deductions of Andrew Fursov, the director of the Centre of the Russian Studies of MGU (Moscow State University), the director of the Systematic-Strategic analysis Institute, the scholar of the International Academy of Science (Austria), the main editor of the magazine “Востоковедение и африканистика” (“Orientalism and Africanism”), an often guest lecturer in European and American Universities.

Ukrainian-Association-with-EU

(This is a slightly earlier interview with A.I.Fursov, but it goes into a lot more detail about the events in Ukraine. Please note that half a year has passed, and he was right and accurate, about the events which had already happened and are still unfolding – MR)

Q: Andrey Iliych, the main geopolitical question of today is the Russian geopolitics in Ukraine. Let’s start our conversation with the analysis of that situation. What happened there?

A: The situation in Ukraine, I would put on a par with the situation in Syria. And if the Syrian question was met with conflicting views – the leaders of the world Capitalism, the Elite, did not want an escalation of the conflict in Syria and its transformation into a regional war – the Ukrainian question was met by the West as one. It is obvious that, economically, Ukraine is of no interest to the northern-Atlantic Elite. It is, rather, a geopolitical necessity to tear Ukraine from Russia, to turn it into an anti-Russian foothold.

fursov_a_i_200_autoThe separation of Ukraine, from Russia, is a long-time geopolitical project of the West – Germans, Britons, Americans. We often quote the words of Zbignew Brzezinski: “deprived of the reunion with Ukraine, Russia is not destined to reclaim the status of a great power”. “Long Zbig” is wrong: Russia can reclaim that status without Ukraine, but it will be more difficult and take longer. The thing is, Brzezinski is not original; he repeats the words of a German General Paul Rohrbach, who stated, in the beginning of the XX century: “to diminish the threat of Russia to Europe, and especially to Germany, you must completely remove Ukrainian Russia from Muscovy Russia”. Please note that to a German General both – Ukraine and Muscovy – are Russia; and he speaks of creating an internal, Russian, split. He evokes the ideas of the German politicians of the last third of the XIX century, principally Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck-Schönhausen, who not only insisted on the necessity of such a split, but defined the means.

Many German politicians outlined the need to oppose Ukraine to Russia, incite the people; in order to do so, it is necessary to cultivate, among the Russian Ukrainians, people with a consciousness, so perverse, that they will begin to hate everything Russian. Thus, it was the psycho-historical operation, with information and psychological sabotage aimed at the creation of Slavic-Russophobes as a psycho-cultural type and a political power. Edakii Orcs in the service of Western Saruman . They were to sever Ukraine from Russia and to oppose it, as a final “anti-Russian Russ”, as a “free and democratic” alternative to the Empire. All this was originally moulded as a Galician project, which was worked on, first, by Austro-Hungarian intelligence and Kaiser’s Germany; then taken over by the Third Reich and inherited, in the second half of the XX century, by the CIA and the BND.

After the “Orange Revolution” (in 2004) it appeared, to the West, that the task was almost complete – but they were wrong. By the end of 2013 it again appeared so; it seemed that the EU clamp was firmly around Yanukovych’s neck, tightening over Ukraine. But, the position of Russia (and possibly, China) played a lead role, and Yanukovych, deciding on his own, unknown, game, bolted. It was at this instant that the West wrote-off, firstly, Yanukovych, and, secondly, the peaceful “Orange” path of separating Ukraine from Russia. Instead they bet on the “Banderovtsy”, on the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Russophobes; the product of that very psycho-historical operation, started by the Germans one hundred and fifty years ago. Then during the second world war, the Nazis picked up the baton, creating the “Galichina” SS Division, and since 1990 ‘s, the heirs of the Third Reich – the Americans – were to establish a new world order (what a coincidence terminology!).

During the current situation with Ukraine, the USA and the EU showed a clear, unashamed demonstration of double standards, hypocrisy and Russophobia. That is the only explanation for their “tolerant” behaviour towards the Ukrainian Nazis, who marched through the streets of Kiev, to the SS mantras. The logic is simple: if the Ukrainian Nazis (and the Baltic ones) are against Russia, let them be. On the other hand, this is nothing new for the Americans. Actively aided by the Russophobic Vatican throughout 1945-46, they did everything to get the Nazis away from justice (even those guilty of “war crimes”); to smuggle them into USA or Latin America, and actively utilise them against the USSR. The Ukrainian events are a clear example, of who we are dealing with.

Q: Who exactly are we dealing with?

A: In Kiev, on the 19-21 of February, there occurred a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, inspired by the collective West, primarily by the US. It was the Americans, who exploited the stupidity and greed of Yanukovych (and his entourage), who altered the situation, by halting the anti-terrorist operation of the Ukrainian government at the start. If the operation had been given the green light, Maidan would have been over (as it had already began to dissolve). But the result was as it happened. The long years of work of the US intelligence with the Ukrainian leaders, who keep their money in the American banks, with the SBU (the Ukrainian secret service), with the Bandera underground, which was reinvented and activated, paid off.

It is significant that during the two deciding days, the American ambassador took on the “role” of the Rada (Parliament) Speaker, dictating the conditions to the leaders of the “nezalezhnoi” (independent) Ukraine. But, how can we even mention the constitutional “nezalezhnost” (independence)? The quasi-state of Ukraine has always been prominently steered by the external influence; here, such was revealed most visibly, cynically and impudently. It was done so to demonstrate who runs the “show” – and who steers the events – of the Rada (Parliament) and of Maidan; to demonstrate whose will directs the neo-Nazi scum. The American-Bandera revolt could prominently change the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, Eurasia and the world.

Q: But, did the Kiev protest not represent the real, honest, discontent of Yanukovich’s regime?

A: Yanukovich’s clan, without a doubt, is mafia-oligopolistic. But the West – and the pro-western powers within the Ukraine – abused, for self-profit, the natural discontent of the Ukrainian population.

Q: What are their aims?

A: At a minimum, the creation of a West Slavic Bandera neo-Nazi Reich. A constant pressure upon Russia, with numerous methods of provocation, including sabotage. And, if receiving an adequate response – replicating in the world’s media the image of ” a free and democratic Ukraine, which is being molested by the imperially motivated Russia. In short, poor little Ukraine – a victim of the big Russia, following the proven Yugoslavian scheme: “poor Albanians – victims of the evil Serbs”.

A maximum program, identical to the one in 1930’s, with the creation of the German Nazi Reich: the creation of a force, which, if necessary for the West, will take on the deciding role in a war with Russia, resulting in a maximum Russian exhaustion, self-destruction. In other words, the final solution to the Slavic/Russian question, carried out by the Slav/Russians themselves, with a subsequent division of Russia/northern Eurasia and the allocation of the natural resources and land. It must be remembered: the current separation of Ukraine from Russia is planned to result in an opposition, to pressure or to punch Russia with the strength of the Bandera neo-Nazi regime.

This, among other factors (such as the power struggle among the American leadership, Obama’s shaky position after the stale 2013, the American-German disagreements, the Chinese games in Eastern Europe and so on), is the USA’s reply to the actions of Russia, during 2013. It appears that they (the current administration and the clans behind it), obliged to save face, are commencing active action. The elections are in two years’ time, and the Democrats desperately don’t want to leave the White House, meaning that Obama is forced to work for the next, probably white, President. Whoever that will be – maybe Madam Clinton (who spent the whole of December 2012 fuming over the Customs Union, claiming it to be the re-Sovietisation of the post-Soviet territory and demanding that the US must oppose it with all means), Biden or someone else – is of no importance. What is of importance is the fact that Russia should not expect anything pleasant from this segment of the American Elite, while an attack is possible.

But, as the heroes of the movie “Chapaev” stated about the enemy attack: “Psychic? Screw it, let’s go mental.” On paper, everything was smooth. History – is Queen of the insidious; it is enough to remember how it ended for those, fuelled by the desire to find a permanent solution to the Russian question. This is not to mention the fact that there is East and South-East of Ukraine.

Q: Could it be that you are exaggerating?

A: I’d really love to be wrong, I want time to prove that I was exaggerating. Never the less, I have spent decades studying the international power struggle, information and resources; analysing the aims and the actions of the north-Atlantic Elites. I repeat: Russia, even in its current state, is still the only obstacle in the way of the full world domination, the creation of a “New World Order”. This is why one of the last commanders of the Soviet intelligence, Leonid Shebarshin, stated: “the West needs one thing from Russia: for it not to exist.” Strategically, geo-historically – to not exist. In order to organise such “non-existence” a battering-ram is needed – like Hitler. That is why we must always be ready for an attack: we have been warned. I would rather exaggerate and be wrong, than to allow for a repeat of the 22nd of June 1941; especially, taking into account the fact that, the northern-Atlantic Elites are an enemy much more dangerous than Hitler, with his Third Reich, who ended up alone, and opposed by almost the whole world. Today, we are the ones alone and opposed by, almost, the whole world; the RF (Russian Federation) is not the USSR, not so in terms of economic potential, and not so – most importantly, in the quality of the human resource.

Q: How do you see Ukraine after the collapse of Yanukovich’s regime?

A: Ruins. Nothing else is possible. A Partly destroyed, partly repressed, partly exiled Russian population. The infrastructure destroyed, the land bought by the West and, to a smaller extend, by China. It’s theoretically possible for a commotion, which will end with overturn of the Bandera regime. But, it is hard to overthrow the regime, which is sustained by the West. That was possible, when USSR existed in the world – a second Super Power, which could have supported the weaker of our world, the underdogs, in their struggle against the strong; against the iron foot of the “bourgeoisie”.

A more probable outcome: the regime and the West will attempt to direct the social rage of the masses at the eastern neighbour, declaring it to be the source of all sorrow, lashed by the, supposed, “whip of the Russian Empire”, “Soviet Totalitarism” and so on. Regrettably, the bout for Ukraine is lost, and most shabbily. Our ambassadors worked with the Ukrainian oligarchs, chasing their own gain, completely forgetting about the people, the population, some pro-Russian – for the dollar fogs the mind. At the same time the West worked with both, the oligarchs and the most active representatives of the anti-Russian forces, layers, groups. It was those groups that became the “Jokers”, with which the West beat the, so-called, pro-Russian oligarchs and their envoy, Yanukovych, with a criminal past.

Yet, I will repeat: history – is a cruel Queen. Everything can go by a different scenario. The future is not foretold, it is created from the struggle, from the collision of will and strength; thus, it depends on us, on our actions. Losing the bout, is not the same as losing the match, the match continues. But, to win, or, at least not to lose, merciless effort has to be applied to right the mistakes, to clean house. The loss of the “Ukrainian bout” is the result of internal problems, internal instability.

Q: You say the bout for Ukraine is lost. What about the Russian army in the Crimean territory?

A: The decision of the Russian administration, particularly Putin, completely destroys the scenario of the evolvement of the Bandera neo-Nazi revolt in Ukraine, inspired by the West, primarily by the USA. From that, we can state that the “face” of “Sasha Belyj” (Alexander Muzychko, a known Nazi, part of the post-revolt Ukrainian government, used to attend parliament meetings with an AK, was murdered, shot in the heart, 10 days after this interview – MR) is the reflection of President Obama and all those in the West, who pushed the neo-Nazis into power. Once the power was seized in Kiev, the radicals, after banning the use of the Russian language in their first Act, planned – reinforced and aided by the West – to push the Russian east and south-east into submission, onto their knees. But, it turned out that those regions had support, serious support – Russia. It turns out that a country, which has defeated Nazism before, stood-up to the neo-Nazis’ attempt at a Russian genocide.

The suppression of the east and south-east (it would have followed the same pattern, which was utilised to overpower the Serbs during the Yugoslavian affair, only the Albanians, who acted from below the NATO shields, would have been replaced by the western Ukrainians) is utterly necessary to the northern-Atlantic Elite – for they want the whole of Ukraine, not only the western part. Because, the western part alone is completely pointless, and can be used only as a second Kosovo.

This is why, the Russian position has enraged the western leaders, who, in turn, are not actually capable of any serious harm; only the winding up of the nerves, provocations, petty deceits and so forth. The words of Obama and Co, are lined with impotent fury. They wanted Russia to step aside and watch, to observe how the Russians would be stomped, how the Slavic neo-Nazi Reich would be formed on her western border. It is most educational to observe that the majority of the Russian Federation population supports the actions of the government. The majority, from which a small, but very loud, group is excluded: the “fifth column”, the one that started hissing straight away.

In general, the situation in Ukraine, and around it, perfectly exposes the “fifth column” – her vileness, her intellectual and professional squalor. An expert surfaced, from the Carnegie Fund, and began squeaking that all this reminds him of the arrival of the troops in Afghanistan. What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Did Afghanistan, prior to the introduction of the Soviet troops, house a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, and did the persecution of the Russians begin? Was Afghanistan, inhabited by the citizens of Russia (then of the USSR)? Where is the logic? It appears that logic is redundant for an expert, the main thing is that the American “masters” heard him bark, loud and timely. On the other hand, if I were in place of the “owners”, I would have cut the pay cheque, of such a “servant”; how could an expert, so stupidly “guard” the interests of those who’d hired him? He should be more graceful, more meticulous.

That is the problem of the “fifth column”. You listen to their argumentation and wonder: are they that unprofessional or are we dealing with a basic case of imbecility?

One more question, why does our country still accommodate institutions such as the Carnegie Fund? Why is an agency, clearly of a foreign influence, so comfortable in our country? Yes, they are mostly rude and counterproductive, but it is a matter of principle. But, back to the surface. For example an outdated singer. Proudly announcing that our army, in the Ukraine, will nosedive, like it did in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunate, weak man, go read a book, if you can still read. The Soviet Army established control over Czechoslovakia (the third strongest army of Europe, following the USSR and East Germany) in 36 hours, with minimal losses – of its own and civilian ones. That operation was studied as a model in NATO centres. The current crisis will require trimming the “fifth column” of the media; you need to put hard political and legal barriers to its operations. And ignore the hypocritical cries of those who wallowed in the blood of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, many countries, with blood, and are ready to drown Ukraine.

Overall, the West is increasingly interested in the Russian situation, in the post-Soviet region. Do they not have their own problems? If so, maybe such should be arranged? Why does the West operate, unpunished, in our zone? Why shouldn’t we start doing, what the Soviet Union did, actively working the foreign zones? Considering that there are more than enough feeble locations.

In any outcome, the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the West to the backdrop of the national discontent with Yanukovich’s regime, is a marker in the history of Europe, Eurasia and international relations. The era, which started in 1991 with the August provocation and the betraying “belovezhskij” agreement (Belovezha Accords), is coming to an end. A new era is dawning. You can’t run away from time – and why would you? Time must be met, face first.

And, most of all, you must protect your own, fight for them, as Alexander Nevskij would have said “for friends of yours”. In the given situation, not only “for friends”, but for yourself – for the Russian existence and self-sufficiency in history.

Original article: in Russian

Translated by Maria Razdiak
Edited by Paul Shalley & S. Naylor

The announcement by Barack Obama on July 31st to appoint John F. Tefft as the new U.S. ambassador to Russia is a warning to the Russian government of the intensions of western foreign policy planners. Tefft, who has worked for the State Department and the National War College in Washington, is an expert at planning colour revolutions to overthrow regimes targeted by the western elite. He is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine where he was a key architect in preparing the Washington orchestrated coup in Kiev.

Colour revolutions are based upon a fusion of the Rand Corporations “swarming” technique invented in the 1960’s and Professor Gene Sharp’s guide to nonviolent struggle in the 1990’s. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) act as an extension of western intelligence agencies to create artificial revolutionary movements in countries that oppose Anglo-American hegemony through the use of social networks and text messaging, resulting in the overthrow of unfavorable regimes. They always appear as organic demonstrations by a people against a corrupt ruling class, which is reinforced and sometimes manufactured by the mainstream corporate media, but in reality they are organised by foreign NGOs – like in the case of the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS), a U.S supported Serbian based “revolution consultancy” group, which was operating in Ukraine during 2013-14. The 2000 coup in Serbia, the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine are some of the most notorious coups where this technique has been used.

The most experienced NGO that has been involved in the majority of the colour revolutions over the past two decades is the ubiquitous National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose “funding is dependent on the continued support of the White House and Congress”. The historian Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation in the 1980’s creating NED, remarked during an interview with the Washington Post in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”. Carl Gershman, the President of NED, wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post in September 2013 that: “Ukraine is the biggest prize”, a few months before his organisation was heavily involved in orchestrating protests in Kiev.

Along with fellow regime changing organisations such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) and U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID), NED controls proxy organisations across the globe. One Russian based organisation is the ‘Freedom of Information Foundation’ (FIF), which was founded by Ivan Pavlov and is based in St. Petersburg, whose chief supporters are NED, OSF and U.S. Aid.  On 19th August, the Russian government expelled the wife of Pavlov due to Russian allegations of her promoting the “overthrow of the constitutional order”. Putin himself has acknowledged the threat to Russian security presented by western NGOs in a speech to the Federal Security Service (FSB) in April, asserting than many NGOs serve “foreign national interests”. U.S. Aid was also expelled from Russia in 2012 due to what the Russian foreign ministry said were “attempts to influence political processes through its grants”.

Relations between Russia and the west are at their most strained since the height of the Cold War, with the Russian President coming under relentless attack by U.S. and EU politicians over Ukraine – Hilary Clinton went as far as to compare Putin to Hitler. It is clear that the western elite are determined to overthrow Putin in Moscow, and replace him with a more subservient, pliant and less nationalist leader who will be more willing to bow to the dictates of Washington, London and Brussels.

Putin’s Russia provides a counterweight to Anglo-American hegemony, although he has flirted with the western elite on occasion. I am no apologist for Putin or the Kremlin but the west has clearly been the belligerent force on the international stage since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) into former Warsaw Pact countries as part of a wider strategy of encircling Russia is a highly provocative tactic.

In a recent article titled ‘The Dangerous Mr. Putin’, neo-con war hawk and former State Department official David J. Kramer blames Putin for the crisis in Ukraine and he asserts that: “This makes Putin, and now even Russia, a serious threat”. Kramer is the President of Freedom House, an organisation which is connected to NED and has been involved in numerous colour revolutions across the planet in the past.

A Colour Revolution in Russia?

There is no doubt that western strategists have been considering instigating a second colour revolution in Russia, after the first attempt to meddle in Russian internal affairs failed in the run up to the 2012 presidential elections. In an article by French intellectual and the founder of Voltaire Network, Thierry Meyssan, he emphasises the importance of the relationship between Putin and Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, in order to ensure Russia’s stability:

“It will be important for President Vladimir Putin to be able to trust his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, whom Washington hoped to recruit to overthrow him.”

Medvedev may be the weak link within the Russian establishment as he was the chair of the Institute of Contemporary Development Board of Trustees in 2008, an organisation that is part of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)’s ‘Council of Councils’ program. If Medvedev is still part of this organisation it could prove decisive in the coming years, as the CFR is America’s pre-eminent think tank which is filled with State Department and CIA officials.

Meyssan also links to a video by a Russian politician Evgeny Fedorov, titled: There will be a Maidan in St. Petersburg. Fedorov states that St. Petersburg has been targeted by the west as a strategic weak spot in Russia where unrest can be fomented and manufactured, with the Governor elections in September a potential opportunity to trigger protests:

“2-3 weeks ago the U.S. ambassador held a closed meeting in one of the theatres in Moscow, where he openly said the first blow will be struck in St. Petersburg during the elections in September.”

If protests erupt over the next few months or years in Russia, the source of the demonstrations and the nature of the NGOs working in the region will have to be closely investigated considering the history of organisations such as NED.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

ISIS: US-made Monster Running Amok in Middle East

August 28th, 2014 by Robert Bridge

In its desire to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, the US channeled arms and funds to the Syrian rebels, many of whom splintered off and formed the Islamic State, which is now giving the US far more problems than it had bargained for.

One year ago, it seemed certain that Washington would launch a military strike on Syria, bringing to its knees yet another undesirable government in the Middle East. However, at the eleventh hour, an incredible thing happened: President Barack Obama requested approval from Congress before using military force in Syria. While some were tempted to applaud the Democratic leader for doing something as radical as upholding the US Constitution, other factors played a role in the decision.

-

AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye

 AFP Photo / Ahmad AL-Rubaye

One of the most convincing reasons for Obama balking on war (aside from Britain politely excusing itself from the expedition) could be summed up by damning comments by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who famously remarked that the US military should not be serving as “Al-Qaeda’s air force.”

“We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al-Qaeda’s air force.”

Suddenly, the American public was forced to fathom the unfathomable: In Syria the US was lending support to the rebels that were getting help from the same terrorist organization that attacked Manhattan and Washington on Sept. 11, killing some 3,000 citizens.

Needless to say, the political stakes involved in advocating on behalf of the Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels suddenly got a lot riskier.

The Texas Senator said that of nine militant groups fighting against Syrian government forces “at least seven had direct connections to Al-Qaeda.” Arming and funding known terrorists in Syria “makes no sense whatsoever,” he said.
Cruz then reminded his colleagues on the basic rules of foreign policy.

“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you.”

Reuters / Osama Al-dulaimi

Cruz’s comments attracted the wrath of American hawks, most notably from Republican Sen. John McCain, who last May secretly flew to Syria to meet with rebel leaders, including General Salem Idriss of the Free Syrian Army. McCain, suddenly characterized in the same league as Al-Qaeda, slammed Cruz’s claims as “totally uninformed.”

However, it was not only the Republicans, of course, beating the war drum for military action in Syria. Last year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on record as saying: “We will work with like-minded states to support the Syrian opposition to hasten the day when Assad falls.”

Ultimately, critics of America’s activities in Syria proved right. Supporting the Syrian rebels without understanding the true nature and character of these individuals marked yet another US foreign policy setback in the region.

Islamic State rising

Almost overnight, many of the Syrian rebels – some of them Al-Qaeda members – working to overthrow the Assad regime broke away and formed what has come to be known as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, or Islamic State (IS) for short.

The dramatic rise of this group almost defies belief, but apparently its willingness to use extreme forms of violence explains part of their sudden popularity.

On the other hand, IS is said to be so cruel and vicious that it managed to get disavowed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, the very same group of terrorists that thought nothing of flying commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The latest victim of IS’ cruelty was James Foley, a freelance journalist who disappeared in Syria in November 2012. On August 19, a video briefly surfaced entitled, “A Message to America” that showed Foley kneeling at an unknown desert location. After delivering a brief statement that is critical of the United States government, the video fades out as an alleged IS militant is seen dragging a knife across Foley’s neck.

It should be mentioned that some analysts have questioned the legitimacy of the IS video on several accounts, namely the apparent censorship of the beheading: If IS is indeed so cruel and vicious why was the actual moment of the beheading concealed? Also, no Arabic is spoken in the video. Foley’s captor and apparent executioner delivers a brief address in the English language, which might be understandable since some IS members hail from Britain. And why is the video not of the grainy, shaky sort usually put out; why is it so polished? It is questions like these that have caused some to believe the video was a carefully staged event, although few doubt that Foley was indeed executed.

However, such questions are not hurting the membership drive of IS: according to one of Iraq’s most respected security experts the number of Islamic State recruits is much higher than that estimated by foreign observers – around 100,000. Foreign estimates put the figure between 20,000 and 50,000.

Meanwhile, the US government is tracking as many as 300 Americans reportedly in the ranks of Islamic State. Washington has expressed concern that these radicalized civilians could become a risk to the US if they return home with skills learned overseas to carry out attacks, anonymous US officials said, according to the Washington Times.

Reuters / Osama Al-dulaimi

“We know that there are several hundred American passport holders running around with ISIS in Syria or Iraq,” a senior US official said. “It’s hard to tell whether or not they’re in Syria or moved to Iraq.”

“ISIS now presents itself as an ideologically superior alternative to Al-Qaeda within the jihadi community and it has publicly challenged the legitimacy of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri,” said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a paper last month. “As such it has increasingly become a transnational movement with immediate objectives far beyond Iraq and Syria.”

The reason for the surge is that IS is quite effective at swallowing up other insurgent groups.

“[The] Islamic State didn’t come from nowhere,” according to Hisham al-Hashimi, who advises Iraq’s intelligence services and analyzes information gathered on the ground. The organization “is an extension of groups that existed before – historically and ideologically,” al-Hashimi told Mashable.

If the Islamic State’s sensational rise to power sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Back in the 1970s, the United States armed and trained the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to help fight against Soviet troops in the decade-long Afghanistan War (Dec. 1979 to Feb. 1989). Those fierce fighters, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, eventually morphed into Al-Qaeda, which turned out to be the first foreign adversary of the United States to launch a successful attack on the US mainland.

Now IS too has threatened to bring the war to America’s front door.

A backdoor to war into Syria?

Ironically, the explosive rise of IS across a wide swath of Iraq and Syria is handing the Obama administration an opportunity for doing what it could not do one year earlier: Open a military offensive in Syria. Following the reports of decapitated Christian babies, and the beheading of the American James Foley, it will be harder for critics like Ted Cruz to question a military operation against IS – even in Syria.

In fact, the US media seems to be priming the American public for yet another Syrian showdown: “The Pentagon began preparing options for an assault on Islamic State fighters after the militants last week posted a gruesome video showing the beheading of American photojournalist James Foley. Deliberations by Obama’s national security team on expanding the campaign against Islamic State from Iraq into neighboring Syria gathered pace in recent days,” Reuters reported on Thursday, quoting unnamed officials.

“From unmanned armed drones to powerful Stealth bombers, a wide range of U.S. airpower is at Obama’s disposal, including possible missiles fired from warships at sea or from aircraft flying outside Syria’s borders.”

The obvious question is: Will a US military attack on IS positions in northern Syria eventually snowball into a full-blown war with Syria? President Assad has already warned that any foreign military actions on the territory of his country will be considered an act of war.

And that may be exactly what the hawks in Washington want to hear.

Robert Bridge is author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.

When Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 went down on July 17, 2014, we were immediately inundated with base propaganda trying to convince us that the shootdown could be traced back to the Kremlin. But what was this rush to judgement based on? What have we learned about the crash since then? Why has MH17 completely disappeared from the news cycle? And who really stood to benefit from the disaster? Find out the answers to these questions and more in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report.

Absurdity beyond comprehension.

Washington supported the Free Syria rebels who aligned themselves with the terrorist group called Al-Nusra to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad,

Then the Syrian rebels and other groups in Iraq form another terrorist organization who call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The consequences of Washington’s policies of aiding the Syrian rebels including ISIS have served a purpose. ISIS has spread to both Syria and Iraq gaining territory. ISIS has claimed it has executed 250 Syrian soldiers last weekend as they seized an airbase in the province of Raqqa.

Washington considers the advancement of ISIS a threat to its national security. As reported by the Associated Press, US surveillance planes were already deployed to pinpoint specific targets. The article titled ‘US surveillance planes fly over Syria, officials say’ stated that

“Two U.S. officials said Monday that Obama had approved the flights, while another U.S. official said early Tuesday that they had begun. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name, and spoke only on condition of anonymity.”

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey did not comment on surveillance flights currently in use but did say that “Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture,” said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. “The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have … some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward.” Obama’s rationale is that ISIS is a direct threat to American citizens after the public execution of photojournalist James Foley. Republicans are willing to give the Obama administration an authorization to take military action against ISIS in Syrian territory. Historically, Both Republicans and Democrats have always agreed on foreign policy issues, especially when war is on the agenda:

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday the administration “has not yet shared with us what their plans are.” He said he hoped the White House would go to the Congress with a request for an authorization to act.

“I think it’s our responsibility as elected officials to let the American people know where we stand with respect to national security matters,” Corker told MSNBC. “For the American people’s sake, Congress should weigh in. Congress should be a part of it”

Rest assured, Congress would vote for military action against Syria. They have an agenda that is multi faceted. First, it supports weapon’s manufacturers such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon in a time of war. An online guide to campaign contributions that influence politicians’ called opensecrets.org states that there were 227 Republicans and 188 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 49 Democrats and 40 Republicans that received funding from the defense industry. Second, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has an interest in removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because of his diplomatic relations with several of Israel’s enemies including Iran.

Washington also has a keen interest of having a military presence in the Middle East to control the natural resources including oil and gas. Washington and its corporate partners want its military to stay in the Middle East for the long term.  By supporting Israel (a U.S. watchdog in the region) and having their military bases in key areas in close proximity to oil producing facilities, it would guarantee the import of natural resources into US and European markets. China would then have limited capacity to obtain natural resources it needs for its economy. Now Washington’s favorite enemy, ISIS is in the picture. The Obama administration will obviously use this crisis as a way to prepare US forces for a future “blitzkrieg” against Assad’s forces. According to the Daily Beast, A mainstream media online news source stated the following:

One former senior U.S. diplomat who has consulted with the administration on the ISIS threat told The Daily Beast that he would expect Obama to be presented with an option similar to Vice President Joe Biden’s favored policy from 2010 for Afghanistan known then as counter-terrorism plus. This kind of approach would be a drone and air campaign against ISIS targets in Syria. The United States has conducted drone and airstrikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. But in all of these cases the host government has requested them. This week, Syria’s foreign minister warned the United States not to enter Syrian air space

According to the Associated Press, Obama is concerned that if he orders airstrikes against ISIS, it would weaken the US position to topple the Assad government, because on the international stage it would solidify the fact that the U.S. and Syria has partnered to take out a common enemy “Administration officials have said a concern for Obama in seeking to take out the Islamic State inside Syria is the prospect that such a move could unintentionally help embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

But it would also become an act of aggression on Syrian territory. The Obama administration has publically stated that it would not ask the Syrian government for permission to enter its air space. Why? Maybe Washington wants to raise tensions with the Assad government? “A top Syrian official said Monday any U.S. airstrikes without consent from Syria would be considered an aggression” the AP report said. It also stated the fact that “The Islamic State is among the groups seeking Assad’s ouster, along with rebel forces aided by the U.S.” So ISIS and the U.S. government has a common enemy?

Now let get this straight. Originally the Obama administration has repeatedly called for the removal of the Assad government. The Obama administration has consistently supported the Syrian rebels to remove Assad, but has failed because the Syrian government defeated the Western backed Free Syrian Army (FSA). Another question is why would the Syrian government allow the US to battle ISIS on its territory? Syria is more than capable of defeating ISIS as it did with the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration will not ask the Assad government for permission to launch airstrikes in Syria. Now let’s see who the enemies of all parties involved are. First, the U.S. Government’s enemy is clearly the Assad government who was recently re-elected by a majority of the people. ISIS is an enemy of the U.S. and the U.S. is an enemy of ISIS, especially after the brutal beheading of James Foley made it somewhat clear. Syria’s enemy is the U.S. government who has destabilized many areas of Syria resulting in the deaths of at least 160,000 people. The US has aided the FSA which resulted in the creation of Al-Nusra and ISIS, all considered enemies of Syria. Now all terrorist organizations operating in Iraq and Syria are supposedly enemies of each other. Lebanon’s Daily Star reported this past May that:

Al-Nusra Front and ISIS have in recent months fought intense, bloody battles against each other, particularly in eastern Syria on the border with Iraq. “We will follow the orders of… Ayman al-Zawahiri… to stop any attack from our side against ISIS, while continuing to respond whenever they attack Muslims and all that is sacred to them,” Al-Nusra said in a statement.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is hard to comprehend.  Syria is the enemy of the U.S. government and its terrorist organizations it has supported over the years. In this case, who is the enemy and who is the friend? The U.S. does not have a real friend in this fight because it already has what it wants, instability.  All parties are expendable as we clearly seen with U.S. airstrikes targeting ISIS in Iraq. Washington has friends in the Middle East, and that is Israel and the Gulf state dictatorships.  Syria is back in the spotlight. Washington is determined to oust the Assad government and create a fragmented state as they did to Libya. By supporting Israel and its Gulf states allies including Turkey and Jordan militarily and economically, U.S. interests would be secure. In a sense, it is order out of chaos.

The West is trying to turn the Russian humanitarian aid convoy “… into a duplicitous dangerous act because it would better fit with the kind of scenario that they have been putting forth about Russia being a predator or being the provocateur,” says renowned author Dr. Michael Parenti, a political scientist from Yale University, a historian, and a cultural critic, in an interview with Radio VR.

Dr. Parenti is the author of over 23 books whose works have been translated into 18 languages. He has given frequent lectures all over the world on a wide range of subjects and is the author of a college level political science textbook. Dr. Parenti’s working class roots may have figured into his motivation to be a defender of the little guy, the exploited and the victims of empire. He has proven himself to be a champion of the truth and a consistent defender of the underdog.

The Russian Federation recently sent a convoy of 270 trucks (with another convoy scheduled to depart in the near future) carrying more than 200,000 tons of humanitarian aid to provide much needed relief to the civilian population of the besieged Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Dr. Parenti stated that: “The caravan proved to be full of peaceful materials (food and medicine and things like that) and that doesn’t look good from their view. Their goal is to try to make the Russians look as bad as possible, to justify their own aggression against the eastern Ukrainian people and the Republic they tried to set up.”

Download mp3

Russia's humanitarian aid convoy leaves Izvarino border crossing point, moves to Luhansk

The humanitarian mission and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry (EMERCOM) met with an unprecedented icy reaction from the West. EMERCOM has even helped the United States on several occasions. The accusations levied at the relief trucks ranged from “covert weapons supplies” to “outright invasion”. Dr. Parenti believes that Kiev is attempting to “pacify” the eastern regions and “the way to pacify them is to terrorize them into submission.” All the while, the West has been saying: “… it is the Russians who are aggressing and who are threatening and who have these big terrible white trucks that may destroy us all!”

Russia’s humanitarian aid convoy leaves Izvarino border crossing point, moves to Luhansk

Members of the western media have even attempted to shed an ominous light on “empty space” in trailers, obviously showing their ignorance that trucks have a certain weight limit (approximately 40 metric tons). A trailer filled with toilet paper would be packed to the roof but one with baby food would only be loaded with pallets about waist high. Dr. Parenti shrugged off the idea that the trucks may be covertly supplying weapons, saying: “… the tanks and the artillery and the firepower and the white phosphate bombs, which burn people to pieces if they get touched by the stuff, all of that is being provided by Kiev.”

Dr. Michael Parenti, a political scientist from Yale University, a historian, and a cultural critic

While discussing the situation in Ukraine which he characterizes as the overthrowing of a “democratically elected government” with “a new government put in with Nazi and Right Wing groups playing a central role,” Dr. Parenti mentions

“… a memo from the Rand Corporation that was circulating among the Ukrainians and the Kiev Group that said things like: ‘… you move in on the people, cut off their electricity and water, try to discourage their food supplies and yes you may have to use and you will use non-conventional weapons.’”

Dr. Parenti says Kiev has done all of these things including the use of white phosphorous. He says:

“… the Rand Corporation is a ‘think tank’ that is in the pay of the Pentagon which comes up with suggestions and operational plans,” and that they (RAND): “… talked about what is to be done in this situation, and they have been doing it, using heavy artillery, heavy armor and they have been very destructive of various eastern towns.”

The reckless tactics of the Kiev military are touched upon by Dr. Parenti who says:

“They are not discriminating between armed soldiers and civilians and are rounding up any people who show signs of fighting, if they have any burns or bruises on their hands…”

He says we are seeing a “very mean spirited and brutal war against the Russian speaking eastern Ukrainians with almost 2,000 people having been killed and hundreds injured or made destitute after their homes have been blown up.”

The involvement of NATO in Ukraine is a topic which few talk about and in fact about which little is known and Dr. Parenti touchs on the issue by saying; “While this is going on (the punitive Kiev war) you have NATO waging a war of attrition against these people.”

Against the backdrop of the negative media campaign against the humanitarian convoys and the non-reporting of alternative narratives on the Ukraine crisis,

Dr. Parenti says that in the West

“We hear nothing from Putin. We never see a word of what he says, we never hear his statements or comments. All we have are these commentators speaking ironically and with alarm and disparaging tones” asks the question: “What exactly has Putin done that is so wicked and evil? He is not the one collaborating with Nazi groups. He isn’t the one who is killing eastern Ukrainians.”

Regarding Russian troops Dr. Parenti makes the point that if Russia was planning to invade there would be huge numbers not merely what is currently on the Russian border, as any country has the right to have troops on their own borders.

Dr. Parenti also says: “President Putin is not trying to dismember Ukraine but he has been giving some protection to people in eastern Ukraine, not just slaughtered out and out.”

The New York Times‘ Upshot section (8/26/14) put the headline “How Social Media Silences Debate” over a story about a new study that shows that the Internet “has diminished rather than enhanced political participation.”

Reporter Claire Caine Miller writes:

“Social media, like Twitter and Facebook, has the effect of tamping down diversity of opinion and stifling debate about public affairs.”

The study–or the Times recap, more to the point–is likely to get a lot of I-told-you-soattention from people who take a dim view of Twitter and the like. So it’s worth making two points.

For one, the study (Pew Research Internet Project, 8/26/14) is remarkably narrow, looking at whether people are hesitant about sharing differing political views with their family and friends. The survey asked about one topic–NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden–and apparently found that people said they were more likely to talk about government surveillance offline than online.

That’s right: There are people out there who might not want to talk on the Internet  about the NSA’s surveillance powers–which include the ability to monitor what people are saying on the Internet.

The study’s authors note that at the time of the survey, the Snowden revelations were only about phone/email metadata–not specifically about monitoring the content of online communications, which came out in subsequent Snowden documents–so they don’t think it had a serious impact on the findings.  They acknowledge, though, that “future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on- and offline as a result of government surveillance programs.”

In any event, I think it’s reasonable to say that it’s hard to draw very many conclusions from questions about this single topic.

But let’s ask the same question about a different kind of media–corporate media, such as the New York Times. What can we say about how it might be “tamping down diversity of opinion and stifling debate about public affairs”?

There’s plenty of evidence. In the run-up to the Iraq War, opponents of the warbarely registered on nightly newscasts. One cable channel fired its most popular host for his dissenting views.

FAIR’s recent study of cable news shows a stunning lack of diversity. Our 2012 study of Sunday morning chat shows a strong tilt towards conservatives, white men and Republicans.  The major op-ed pages strongly favor elite viewpoints.  Unquestionably, radio talkshows  are  overwhelmingly dominated by conservative voices.

Discussions about major  issues like immigration and the minimum wagealmost never include the people who are most affected by the policy debates. And that’s when they cover such issues at all; FAIR has found the major networks give scant time to covering issues like poverty.

We could go on like this for a while.

Protesters in Ferguson

Using Twitter to get the message out from Ferguson

A more reasonable way to think about the political dialogue that happens in social media is that it expands the discussion to include voices and perspectives that are marginalized from corporate media. The events in Ferguson became national news afterTwitterblack Twitter, more specifically–drew attention to the case. For a more firsthand and unfiltered look at the Israeli attacks on Gaza, one had to go to Twitter.

It’s not hard to think of many similar examples of stories that bubbled up from social media to so-called “old” media.

The ability to share and produce journalism on the Internet is what draws so many people to it, and it is what has made Net Neutrality a galvanizing issue. Many of the millions of people who want to protect Internet freedom are so motivated because they don’t want the Internet to become like corporate media. And I suspect many of them would find it downright strange to argue that these new tools of communication are stifling debate.

Though perhaps not too surprising–coming from corporate media.

CNN just dropped the bomb many of us have been waiting for: pure denial. They have been waiting patiently for the journal – Transactional Neurodegeneration – which published the historical study on the link between autism and MMR vaccine to retract, redact and otherwise deny the truth of the study.

For the record, we contacted the editor-in-chief of Transactional Neurodegeneration, Professor Shengdi Chen tonight, with this communication:

Professor Shengdi Chen,

Your recent decision to remove Dr. Hooker’s article published in your journalTransactional Neurodegeneration online has been cause of great concern among stakeholders in the scientific, journalistic and legal community here in the U.S., due to a top CDC vaccine safety expert — William Thompson – confessing under the advice of legal counsel today that the CDC manipulated and/or omitted data used in Dr. Hooker’s study that falsified a link between African-American children and the diagnosis of autism in those receiving the MMR vaccine before 36 months of age versus those receiving it after 36 months.While it is feasible that you made the decision for scientific, ethical, and precautionary reasons, as you state on your journal’s website:

“This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.”

…the decision raises concerns as to your culpability in a cover-up.

You should know that your decision is being perceived as a threat to the credibility of your journal and career as an esteemed scientist.

Given the legal implications of your decision to potentially collude with a now verified cover-up involving the falsification of scientific data related to vaccine science and autism, would you be willing to make a statement to defend your decision?

I have copied a wide range of legal, journalistic and scientific stakeholders in this communication, and hope you can clear up what appears to be a precautionary decision on your part, which I hope can be clarified in detail on your part.

Sincerely,

Sayer Ji,
Editor-in-Chief of Greenmedinfo.com

The CNN report, which while disturbing, is entirely consistent with their stance on promoting misinformation about the clearly documented dangers of vaccines, verifies the true gravity of this debacle.

Watch the CNN Coverup Story here.

They waited, patiently, to spin the story in a way that advocates for widespread, lemming-like obeyance to the CDC’s one-size-fits-all vaccination schedule, that has been linked to the U.S.’s abysmal infant mortality rate, not to mention burgeoning autism incidence, now afflicting 1 in every 68 children born in this country.

Tonight, we also sent the following communication to the Cheautism listserve, addressing our concerns about the link between the MMR and autism, titled “Confirmed: Wakefield/Hooker’s whistle blower and others at the CDC did falsify vaccine/autism data”:

Today, a press release posted on the website of CDC whistle blower William Thompson’s legal representation, Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamprevealed that Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Hooker’s initial claims about malfeasance at the CDC are, broadly speaking, true. In William Thompson’s own words:

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004ARTICLEEXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

“My name is William Thompson.  I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information  in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased  risk for autism.

Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed…

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular  vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly  convey the risks associated  with receipt of those vaccines.”

As those of you who have been following this unfolding story, covered only in the alternative media, are aware that there has not been a single mainstream or even hybrid media report on the topic thus far, adding to the growing suspicion that this coverup stretches far beyond the CDC to the global mainstream media. As revealed today, the very journal that published Dr. Hooker’s study on the 3.4 fold increase in risk of autism in African-American boys who received the MMR before 36 months of age vs. those who received it after 36 months – Transitional Neurodegeneration – removed the article entirely from its website, with the explanation:

This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation. [see journal comment]

Now that the link between MMR vaccine and autism has been thrust into public attention by one of the CDC’s own top vaccine scientists — at the very top of the evidence- and health authority food chain – and not just the growing number of parents who, after directly witnessing their infants or children undergo sudden neurodevelopmental regression during the most intense vaccination window in life (2-15 months) and who were subsequently slapped with an idiopathic, presumably genetically-based ‘autism’ or ‘autism spectrum disorder’ diagnosis by their pediatricians, the question must be refocused not on if but how the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Here are a few observations as to the cause:

MMR Vaccine May Cause Autoimmunity to the Central Nervous System: Since 2002, research began to emerge showing a clear link between MMR vaccine and the pathogenesis of autism, starting with a report published in the Journal of Biomedical Science showing that abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies are linked to central nervous system (CNS) autoimmunity in children with autism.[1]

The researchers hypothesized that autoimmunity to the CNS may play a causative role in autism, likely by causing the immune system to attack myelin basic protein (MBP) — the insulating sheath that protects the nerves — via a phenomenon known as molecular mimicry.

In order to prove this hypothesis, they took the blood serum of 125 autistic children and 92 control children who were tested for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies – that is, antibodies that are directed not against pathogens but against self-structures. The study found the “presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera.” This antibody was found to be immunopositive for a measles hemmagglutinin protein specific to the measles vaccine component of the MMR vaccine.  They also found a strong association between MMR antibodies and CNS autoimmunity, noting “over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies.” The study concluded that autoimmune-mediated CNS damage could explain how MMR causes autism:

Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”

Both Wild Type and Vaccine Strain Measles Can Cause Brain Damage

In 2009, a study published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, analyzed the blood serum of autistic and normal children, as well as the cerebrospinal fluid of some autistic children.  The results were reported as follows:

Many autistic children harbored brain myelin basic protein autoantibodies and elevated levels of antibodies to measles virus and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Measles might be etiologically linked to autism because measles and MMR antibodies (a viral marker) correlated positively to brain autoantibodies (an autoimmune marker)–salient features that characterize autoimmune pathology in autism. Autistic children also showed elevated levels of acute-phase reactants–a marker of systemic inflammation.

The study clearly found that there is scientific evidence supporting virally driven (both via wild type and vaccine strain MMR) autoimmune mechanisms within a subset of autism patients – what they termed “autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD),” explained by the author’s speculative “neuroautoimmune (NAI) model for autism.” And that AAD can be identified through basic blood serum based immune tests.

MMR Vaccine May Cause Autoimmunity towards Gastrointestinal and Brain Targets

A 2003 paper published in Medical Hypotheses asked the question: “Does the MMR vaccine and secretin or its receptor share an antigenic epitope?”[2]  The researchers hypothesized that the MMR vaccine, which is believed responsible for causing a regressive autism-spectrum like condition in a subgroup of children, may produce autoantibodies that target secretin or its receptor, which is found in the gut as well as the brain, and would therefore cause both gastrointestinal distress and brain damage consistent with the “autistic entercolitis’ that Andrew Wakefield first identified in his subjects.

Obviously, this is only one of many potential mechanisms for MMR-caused or mediated autism pathogenesis. Another, commonly overlooked factor, which I would appreciate getting criticism or feedback on from the cheautism list community is:

  • Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs): the master seed stock for the MMR vaccine included cell lines – diploid and animal — which are now known to harbor a reservoir of proviruses capable of undergoing pathogenic reactivation into replication competent and virulent ERVs both through chemical (e.g. formaldehyde) and radiation exposure (e.g. gamma radiation) and through the attenuation process itself, which requires serial passage of the intended vaccine virulence factor – e.g. measles, rubella – through a wide range of biological fluids and cell types, providing ample opportunity for recombination, human cell line adaption and surreptitious activation of pathogenicity, including zoonosis — crossing over of an essentially benign ERV sequence in the native cell line to a cell from another species.

Indeed, when the original master vaccine seed stocks for many of the attenuated vaccines still in the present-day CDC vaccine schedule were being developed, the approximate 50% viral origin of the human and related animal genomes was not yet known, and reverse transcriptase was not even discovered until the 70′s. Publicly available WHO and CDC documents clearly reveal that a major concern at the time in vaccine development was the theorized existence of a ‘carcinogenicity factor’ in immortal cell (cancer) lines that, while being ideal candidates for vaccine development and manufacturing, due to the fact that they would not need to be replenished — as is the case for diploid cell lines that require refreshment with newly aborted fetal cells — and so, they made a conscious decision to use non-human animal cell lines to evade this perceived cancer threat. Since then, a wide range of oncogenic (and otherwise pathogenic) viruses have been discovered in simian (e.g. SV40), chicken (e.g. endogenous avian leukosis virus), mouse (e.g. mouse mammary tumor virus), pig (e.g. pig endogenous retrovirus; the major impasse towards porcine xenotransplanation in human medicine), and other animal species cell lines — all of which many presently contaminate live vaccines like the MMR, and any one of which may contribute to the pathogenesis of neurological conditions including ‘autism.’

Health Guide: Vaccine Research | GreenMedInfo | Health Guide

Clearly, there a widespread coverup is underway. if it were not for the CDC scientist’s own statement, we would not have reason to raise such a high level of concern. And yet, William Thompson himself admits culpability and points to others at the CDC who were in collusion with covering up the autism-MMR link. The truth will prevail.

Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), and an advisory board member of the National Health Federation. 

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is widely recognized as the most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

The claims concerning Russian troops entering Ukraine are groundless, Leonid Slutsky, the head of the State Duma Committee for CIS Affairs, said Thursday.

“Lies have become habitual for the so-called Ukrainian authorities, so [Ukrainian President] Poroshenko is not going to surprise anyone in Russia, or in the West. I can only say that there are no grounds for such claims,” Slutsky told RIA Novosti.

According to the official, Poroshenko’s cancelation of his scheduled visit to Turkey under the pretext of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine is nothing but a publicity stunt.

“I think that very soon the international community will make an objective assessment of the Kiev junta’s actions, and many countries, members of the European Council, the representatives of which we are constantly in touch with, are beginning to realize that Kiev is leaking lies,” Slutsky said.

Earlier, the Ukrainian president canceled his trip to Turkey and called an emergency meeting with the country’s security council due to the aggravation of the situation in Donetsk Region, as “Russian troops were actually brought into Ukraine.”

Russia’s envoy to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Andrei Krelin, denied the claims that Russia had sent troops to help independence supporters in eastern Ukraine.

On August 24, Donetsk People’s Republic forces started to move south to the Sea of Azov on the Russian-Ukrainian border. Three days later, the republic claimed it had moved tanks into Novoazovsk on the Sea of Azov.