Americans consider Russia as greatest enemy, says Gallup International poll.
Moscow, Russia: Americans consider Russia as greatest enemy, says, Gallup International poll that was conducted between 8 to 11 February 2015. Moreover, nearly half of Americans see Russian military power as threat to U.S.
According to latest Gallup International poll, North Korea is no more considered as greatest threat to United States rather it is now Russia—a greatest threat to US people. Two years ago, only 2% of Americans named Russia, but that increased to 9% in 2014 as tensions between Russia and the U.S. increased, and now sits at 18%.
As Russia has risen in the “enemy” rankings, the two countries that topped the list in the previous three updates — China in 2014 and Iran in 2011 and 2012 — have slipped. The percentage mentioning China has dropped eight points over the past year, to 12%, and the percentage mentioning Iran has fallen seven points to 9%.
mericans have also become significantly more likely to view Russia’s military power as a critical threat to the U.S. — 49% now hold this view, compared with 32% a year ago.
Post by TsarSamuil on Feb 18, 2015 13:52:16 GMT -5
CrossTalk: Cold-shoulder War (ft. Graham Allison)
RT Feb 18, 2015
s the West and Russia face off over Ukraine, it is fair to ask whether this conflict represents a much larger struggle. Are we actually witnessing the Third World War being played out? If this is in fact true, what kind of war is it and who is winning?
Post by TsarSamuil on Feb 20, 2015 13:21:00 GMT -5
Foreign military threat real, most Russians believe – poll.
RT.com February 20, 2015 12:40
Some 68 percent of Russian citizens hold that the likelihood of foreign military aggression towards their country has increased. At the same time, 49 percent consider the current state of Russian military as ‘good’.
The research conducted by the government owned agency VTSIOM in mid-February among 1,600 respondents in 132 cities and towns across Russia. According to the poll, the ‘foreign threat index’ is currently at a record high – the number of Russians who think an unspecified foreign military threat is real rose from 52 percent year ago to 68 percent. The share of those who doubt in the existence of such threat has fallen from 42 percent a year ago to 28 percent.
The share of positive appraisals of the Russian military has also grown – 49 percent of the audience describes the current state of the forces as good compared to 24 percent in 2014. Another 40 percent answered that the Russian military is strong enough to repel threats, but still needs improvement. The percentage of responders who gave a negative appraisal of the forces’ condition fell from 14 percent to just 6 percent over the same period.
However, 40 percent of Russians said that the strength of the country’s military forces must be increased. Forty-two percent see no such urge and 7 percent that the ranks of the military can be slashed. The share of those who wanted their close relatives to join the military was equal with the share of those who rejected the idea – 47 percent.
The number of Russians with negative attitude towards the US and EU has hit its highest in modern history, with 36 percent wanting their country to further distance itself from the West, according to the latest poll.
In late January this year, major independent pollster Levada Center released the results of its own poll that showed that the record number of Russians confessed to negative attitude to Western nations.
The number of Russians who claimed their negative attitude to the United States rose to 81 percent compared to 44 percent a year ago. About 71 percent of those polled claimed a negative attitude to the European Union (up from 34 percent). Some 24 percent said that the EU and Russian Federation were in hostile relations, compared to just 1 percent in January 2014.
Post by TsarSamuil on Feb 25, 2015 17:13:42 GMT -5
Collapse of Russia will prove major test for US – Stratfor.
RT.com February 24, 2015 22:21
American think-tank Stratfor has issued a new 'Decade Forecast,' which says the EU will decay, China will end up in "a communist dictatorship," and Russia will disintegrate...though it hasn't done so yet, despite such predictions taking place in the past.
“It is unlikely that the Russian Federation will survive in its current form,” the forecast’s chapter dedicated to Russia begins. The research maintains that Moscow’s “failure to transform energy revenues into self-sustaining economy” will eventually lead to a “repeat of the Soviet Union's experience in the 1980s and Russia's in the 1990s,” with the process accompanied by a demographic decline that is set to “really hit” Russia.
However, the forecaster's founder and CEO, George Friedman, recently said that Russia has the ability to emerge from US-led sanctions and the recent drop in the ruble due to falling oil prices. "Russians' strength is that they can endure things that would break other nations," Friedman said, suggesting that the country "has military and political power that could begin to impinge on Europe."
According to the forecast, Russia’s territorial losses will not be limited to the European part of the country. Its control over the North Caucasus is also predicted to “evaporate,” while maritime regions in Russia’s Far East will “move independently” to the countries they are “closely linked to” – namely China, Japan, and the US. Additionally, Karelia will “seek to rejoin” Finland. The US think-tank, sometimes referred to as a “shadow CIA” due to its employment of former CIA analysts, also warns that this time Russia's alleged tendency of solving problems with "secret police" won't work, and the Federal Security Service will be unable to rescue the country.
The collapse of Russia “will be a major test for the United States,” the research warns, concluding that “Washington is the only power able to address the issue.” However, the research leaves room for possible incidents and some nuclear missiles being “fired in the process.”
Whatever it will take to seize control of Russia’s nuclear forces, inventing a military solution to the problem or imposing a “stable and economically viable government,” this issue will have to be addressed, the research claims, “likely in the next decade.”
'EU has fragmented, will decay'
According to the report, it's not only Russia that will fall to pieces. Stratfor’s researchers believe that “inter-European relations will be increasingly unpredictable and unstable” due to major political tendency of moving “away from multinational solutions to a greater nationalism.”
“No single policy can suit all of Europe,” Stratfor says, explaining that Europe has already fragmented into at least two parts. “What benefits one part of Europe, harms another.” The European Union "might survive in some sense," but its members relations will be "not binding" and "governed primarily by bilateral or limited multilateral relationships.”
'China will end up in dictatorship'
Just like Japan and the “Asian tigers” Taiwan and South Korea, China “has completed its cycle as a high-growth, low-wage country and has entered a new phase,” Stratfor says. This phase will be characterized by an “expansions climax,” or slowdown.
China is following a “hybrid path” of its own by centralizing political and economic powers, ensuring the Communist Party’s control over the military, and consolidating the nation’s fragmented industries. According to Stratfor, this will result in the construction of a communist dictatorship.
Elsewhere, there will be further defragmentation and conflicts spreading through the Middle East and North Africa.
The latest “Decade Forecast” is the fifth published by Stratfor in the last two decades, following reports in 1996, 2000, 2005 and 2010.
'World will remain a dangerous place'
The geopolitical intelligence firm provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world. Publishing their 'Decade Forecast' every five years, Stratfor has repeatedly tried to predict various paths that international governments and political leaders may take. Although the company claims its forecasts are "about predicting the unexpected," quite often they tend to depict its vision of the world's future in broad terms.
"As in the period prior to World War I, prosperity and instability will go hand in hand," Stratfor said in its forecast for 1995-2005. Having predicted that the decade would be "a period of increasing disharmony both between nations and within nations," with China expected to suffer "growing instability, including the strong possibility of fragmentation and civil war," it has only been the US that has been envisioned by the think-tank as "the world's only superpower - the only power able to project its forces globally."
In the 2005-2015 report, the US was predicted to militarily "maintain control of the seas as well as of space, ensuring strategic global domination." At the same time, Stratfor expected its country to "disengage from Iraq – and also from the rest of the Islamic world." However, Stratfor has said the previous report "suffered a deep flaw when failed to forecast the US-jihadist war and, in fact, miscalculated on the Middle East as a whole."
Regarding Russia, already in the 2005 published report it "has been collapsing slowly but surely."
"The elite holding on to Russia's capital and center while the rest of the country crumbles," was expected to "result in the delegitimization of the Russian state and hence disintegration,” it said. "An attempt by Washington to replace Putin with a more accommodating Russian president" should have happened by 2015, according to Stratfor.
"The turning point could come soon, or it could be years away," the previous forecast said.
Sources and methods used by the company have received criticism over the years, especially after the now jailed hacker Jeremy Hammond broke into the Stratfor network as part of the hacktivist collective Anonymous and handed over obtained documents to WikiLeaks for publication. Hammond has admitted in court that he had collected millions of sensitive inner-office emails among other items from the Texas-based company’s computers.
The Stratfor emails released by WikiLeaks and its partners reveal that the intelligence firm's employees have had close – and potentially illegal – connections with the US government and law enforcement officials. The leaked documents also suggest that Stratfor has been occasionally hired by multi-national corporations to target their opponents.
Within numerous correspondence collected by Hammond and his colleagues was also an email from Stratfor vice president Fred Burton, a former government official with strong ties to law enforcement. In the email, he insisted that an indictment against Julian Assange had already been finalized. Accusations that the firm investigated peaceful protestors within the Occupy Wall Street movement, along with members of the non-violent civil disobedience movement US Day of Rage and many others were among other emails.
When Hammond "easily" gained access to the Stratfor system, he was astonished to find that the company’s credit card data had not been encrypted, with the fact later becoming one of the major embarrassments for the intelligence firm. Hammond is currently serving a 10-year jail sentence – one of the longest terms ever handed down to a US hacker.
Post by TsarSamuil on Feb 26, 2015 22:50:38 GMT -5
Why the rise of fascism is again the issue.
RT.com February 26, 2015 17:19
March of the Truth in Kiev. (RIA Novosti/Alexandr Maksimenko)March of the Truth in Kiev. (RIA Novosti/Alexandr Maksimenko)
The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazis iconography is embedded in our consciousness.
Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
“To initiate a war of aggression…," said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, "is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.
Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.
In 2011, NATO launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and UNICEF reported that "most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten".
The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died." His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew ... that if we waited one more day," said President Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for NATO's inferno, described by David Cameron as a "humanitarian intervention".
Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the "rebels" would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by NATO bombers.
For Obama, Cameron and Hollande, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".
Following NATO's attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, "confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency".
The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent NATO to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.
With the NATO bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The NATO attack had been fraudulent.
Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous Eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.
In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. NATO, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation - and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; NATO bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.
Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations - 69 countries - have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.
"Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over." These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. "The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion,” said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed - civilians and soldiers - during Obama's time as president.
The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion . . . Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?
In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.
The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, "could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the Mujahideen started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported."
The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, "there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]". Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the "threat of a promising example".
On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised $500 million in arms and logistics to support tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the Mujahideen. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests ... would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.
The Mujahideen were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter".
Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah - who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help - was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.
The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message was and remains: "You are with us or against us."
The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collatoral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.
Today, the world's greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama's victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA "kill list" presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each "hit" is registered on a faraway console screen as a "bugsplat".
"For goose-steppers," wrote the historian Norman Pollock, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."
Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.
The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the "tragedy" of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places - just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood's violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, American Sniper, which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a "patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days".
There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens - as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.
In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, Eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of NATO, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its "new wave" hailed by the enforcer as "nationalists".
This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left.
These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get "the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry". If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.
No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe - with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kaplan, a leading "neo-con" luminary of the far-right Center for a New American Security, she was foreign policy advisor to the fascist Dick Cheney.
Nuland's coup did not go to plan. NATO was prevented from seizing Russia's historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea - illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 - voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.
At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleaning. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence" caused by the "Russian invasion". The NATO commander, General Breedlove - whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove - announced that 40,000 Russian troops were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.
These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine - a third of the population - have long sought a federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not "separatists" but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous "states" are a reaction to Kiev's attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.
On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright day in our national history". In the American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy" resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).
The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims - "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the junta for its "restraint".
If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.
On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell's fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established ....If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack .... In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons."
In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline. "And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".
In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, "has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones." He lauded Blair as a "Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist". In 2006, he wrote, "Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran."
The outbursts - or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" - are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.
Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship.
They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.
Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.
The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self-respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.
John Pilger, London-based journalist, film-maker and author.
Last Edit: Feb 6, 2017 16:32:00 GMT -5 by TsarSamuil
Post by TsarSamuil on Mar 12, 2015 19:11:51 GMT -5
Russia is not a threat to Britain's security, Philip Hammond is wrong.
Bryan MacDonald is an Irish writer and commentator focusing on Russia and its hinterlands and international geo-politics. Follow him on Facebook
RT.com March 12, 2015 12:51
The British Foreign Secretary proved this week that he's unfit for the rigors of the role. By no stretch of the imagination is Russia the greatest security threat to the UK.
Philip Hammond is in line for the wooden spoon award as the shortest serving British Foreign Secretary for a quarter of a century, according to both the bookmakers and opinion polls. If so, the dreaded ligneous utensil will come in splinters. The multi-millionaire Oxford old boy has been hopelessly out of his depth in the position.
Hammond first indicated that he may be somewhat removed from reality back in 2012. In a, frankly barmy, speech in Germany he defended the role of the banks in creating the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. In terms of tact, this was akin to turning up at a far-right rally in the west Ukrainian city of Lvov, and suggesting Stalin wasn’t such a bad chap after all.
The following year Hammond’s calamitous tongue was at it again - comparing legislation supporting same-sex marriage to the sanctioning of incest. Whatever your views on the matter, to place what amounts to a civil rights campaign in the realm of the oedipal complex was grossly offensive.
The Conservative MP for Runnymede and Weybridge has a habit of saying very silly things. This week he finally took the ‘McVities’ with a statement that not only made him look extremely stupid - it also debased his office. An utterance so imbecilic those illustrious predecessors from the Duke of Wellington to Harold Macmillan must have been spinning in their resting places.
Hammond versus reality
Hammond said: “It (Russia) has the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security.” Some have suggested that the Foreign Secretary was waffling in an attempt to secure funding for the foreign intelligence services (Mi6) which he controls, but I doubt it. I think the ‘cold warrior’ really believes his nonsense. This suggests that either he’s lost touch with reality or is taking advice from unqualified sources.
London is home to a number of activists who masquerade as Russia experts, despite having little or no practical knowledge of the country. By my reckoning, someone who has never lived in Russia, nor has much of a grasp of the language, is not a competent source for information. Even as a tour guide. However, the UK media regularly use such people as pundits, based on some book they’ve written or the fact that Russia was somehow part of their liberal arts course at Cambridge/Oxford. Is it possible that a few of these chancers have somehow bluffed their way into advising government officials? It’s starting to sound like it.
So by what measure of even the most tortured imagination is Russia the “single greatest threat” to the safety of the UK? Russia is very very far from Britain. I know this because I once drove between the two and it took me 4 days. While Finland and Georgia, for instance, have legitimate reasons to fear an aggressive Russia, I can’t fathom for one moment where the UK comes into play here. In order for Russia to attack the British homeland its forces would have to cross Ukraine, Poland, Germany and France first.That's a very, very large buffer zone.
Natural British defenses
In reality, the only countries who could feasibly invade the UK are France and the USA (and even then only if their Irish friends let them land there first, which is rather unlikely). Indeed, Britain’s geographical position is a blessing. The moat around it, allied to its relative martial strength, makes it just about the least likely European country to be threatened by anyone.
Hammond also suggested that he might publicize the value of assets held by the Russian elite in England. This is an extremely good idea. Furthermore, he confirmed that the UK intelligence agencies are recruiting Russian speakers for the first time in decades. Again, this is actually quite welcome. A side-effect of the USSR’s collapse was to relegate the study of Russian to the Vauxhall Conference of language specialization in the UK. Given that Russia is the largest and most populous country in Europe this was a mistake.
The Foreign Secretary also mentioned the, very real, danger posed by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS/ISIL). While Russia is unlikely to radicalize young British citizens, IS has being doing it very successfully. Whatever about Jihadi John, I simply can’t envisage a Cossack Colin escaping to Siberia and attempting to join the Russian army. However, a significant amount of young British Muslims have been travelling to the Middle East to enlist in IS.
Removing the attraction of jihad to young Brits is an internal matter for Westminster to sort out, but eradicating the IS problem at source will require an international coalition. Given the precarious state of most European militaries and Russia’s sway over Iran, it’s transparently obvious that Moscow will have to be involved. The best way to get Russia onside is definitely not to compare it to a mutual concern that both Downing Street and the Kremlin are interested in extinguishing.
Hammond's future is uncertain
On the other hand, Hammond’s Conservative Party has a strangely bi-polar attitude to the military finance issue. Despite the Chancellor, George Osborne, leading an ideological crusade to reduce public spending, the Hammond wing of the party hopes for more money for the armed forces. The two aspirations can’t rhyme.
While Hammond’s comments have caused a stir this week, it’s worth bearing in mind that he’s almost certainly in his last weeks as Foreign Secretary. All indications suggest that Labour will lead the next London government and their putative replacement for Hammond, Douglas Alexander, is vastly more experienced in government than the incumbent. The Scot is also a much smarter operator. Should the Tories somehow retain power, it’s almost certain that Hammond will be moved aside in order to create cabinet space for incoming MP’s like Boris Johnson.
Philip Hammond said a thoroughly stupid thing this week. In doing so, he exposed both himself and the Conservative Party elite as being hopelessly misinformed on Russia. With relations between London and Moscow at an all-time low, the hope is that the next British government works to heal them. As two geographically peripheral countries on opposite edges of Europe, Russia and the UK are no threat to each other. Not in the slightest.
Drills for me but not for thee: NATO launches war games near Russian border.
RT.com March 21, 2015 03:13
Despite being quick to condemn Russian military manoeuvers, NATO is conducting wide-scale war games in the Baltic states and creating a “line of troops” across Eastern Europe. The US denies a double standard, but records and transcripts suggest otherwise.
Thousands of US troops and hundreds of tanks have poured into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the past two months as part of an operation dubbed “Atlantic Resolve.” In February, 140 NATO vehicles and 1400 troops swept through Narva, a mere 300 meters from the Russian border.
“As you connect countries, there is almost a line of US troops,” Defense News quoted Col. Michael Foster of the 173rd Airborne Brigade on March 2 as saying. US forces have previously held joint war games with Baltic nations, with names such as “Saber Strike,” “Spring Storm” and “Flaming Sword.”
When asked why the US was condemning Russian exercises inside Russia, State Department press official Jeff Rathke told RT no such statement had ever been made.
While the US has not criticized every military drill conducted by the Kremlin, last August State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Russia’s aviation exercises are “provocative and only serve to escalate tensions.”
Just last week, Washington pushed Vietnam to prevent Russian aircraft from refueling there.
“We have urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region,” one State Department official told Reuters, on the condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile, in the first three weeks of February, the US Navy flew its latest surveillance aircraft from bases in the Philippines over disputed islands in the South China Sea. The P-8 Poseidon is equipped with the latest sensors and electronics in the US Navy arsenal, and can “pack a serious punch,” according to one US military analyst.
“Wouldn’t US and NATO maneuvers on Russian borders, at a time when the West and Russia are at odds over the crisis in Ukraine, also “raise tensions?” asked AP diplomatic correspondent Matt Lee.
“We would disagree with that,” replied Rathke.
Some, however, found the assertion unconvincing.
“It’s a shocking level of hypocrisy, double standards, doublespeak,” Brian Becker of the ANSWER coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) told RT.
Russia announced a massive surprise military drill earlier this week, putting forces all over the country on high alert and conducting exercises in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, the Arctic and the Far East. The ongoing snap check of the military involves about 76,000 troops, over 10,000 vehicles, 65 warships, 16 support vessels, 15 submarines, 200 warplanes and helicopters.
ANOTHER SCORNED U.S. ALLY TURNS TO RUSSIA Quietly reaching out to arch enemy
Saudi Arabia has quietly reached out to arch foe Russia in an attempt to temper Iran’s regional influence and reach a compromise on Tehran’s nuclear program, Middle Eastern defense officials told WND.
The Saudi move already has resulted in the opening of back-door dialogue between the two countries aimed at possibly forging a new alliance, the officials said.
The talks may showcase Saudi desperation in light of the Obama administration’s rapprochement toward Iran, perhaps the House of Saud’s biggest competitor for influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
Already, the shifting U.S. regional alliances have seen Russia’s military relationship with long-time U.S. ally Egypt grow ever closer.
See all of Aaron Klein’s insightful books at the WND Superstore
The Obama administration has been cool to the secular, moderate government of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, which ousted the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies led my Mohamed Morsi in 2013.
Ever since the U.S. abandonment of Sisi’s regime, Egypt has grown increasingly closer to Russia, as evidenced by the $3.5 billion arms deal between Cairo and Moscow signed last year.
Earlier this month, Egyptian Defense Minister Sidqi Sobqi and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced in Moscow the expansion of Russian military cooperation, which will reportedly include a historic joint naval drill in the Mediterranean Sea.
Additionally, Egyptian soldiers and officers will reportedly train in Russian military academies, reported the Moscow Times.
Now the purported opening of a new dialogue between Moscow and Riyadh seems to continue the trend of former U.S. allies reaching out to the Russian axis.
There is much bad blood between Saudi Arabia and Russia. The Saudis have been backing the insurgency targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, known to closely cooperate with Moscow.
Moscow has long accused the Saudis of supporting Islamists operating in the Caucuses, primarily Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, as part of an alleged destabilization campaign.
The Russians have also claimed the Saudis, working in conjunction with the West, have been attempting to lower oil prices in a scheme to damage the Russian economy.
The sour relations go back to the Cold War era, when the Saudis sided with the U.S. by supporting the American-aided mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Russian invasion there.
ANOTHER SCORNED U.S. ALLY TURNS TO RUSSIA Quietly reaching out to arch enemy
Saudi Arabia has quietly reached out to arch foe Russia in an attempt to temper Iran’s regional influence and reach a compromise on Tehran’s nuclear program, Middle Eastern defense officials told WND.
Dunno know what to think about it, that they are shaken is good at least
Most Russians see their country as great power – poll.
RT.com March 24, 2015 10:06
Sixty-eight percent of Russian citizens believe their motherland is a great power that plays a significant role in international politics, according to the latest opinion poll.
The research, conducted by the independent Levada Center, showed that this is the record historical high. The figure is the same as in November 2014. In 1999 the situation was almost the reverse – the share of Russians who saw their country as a great world power was 31 percent, versus 65 percent who said it was not.
Levada Center specialist Karina Pipiya said in comments with Izvestia daily that the share of Russians who were proud for their country remained at a record high despite many negative factors, such as the complicated economic situation, including inflation and other negative consequences for ordinary people.
The percentage of Russians who think that their country plays a significant role in international politics was also at 68 percent. Twenty-four percent said that Russia’s role in the international arena was not very important and 5 percent consider it secondary. At the same time, 63 percent of respondents said that the country is being threatened by numerous foreign enemies and only 35 percent said that Russia had started to put more fear into its enemies over the past few years.
At the same time, the share of Russians who said they supported further expansion of contacts and cooperation with Western nations was still twice as many than those who oppose it – 60 percent v. 29 percent. However, in 2000 the number of Russians who thought that deeper cooperation with the West was a positive thing was at 76 percent.
Polls conducted in Russia earlier this year have shown record-high support for the authorities in general and for President Vladimir Putin in particular.
The latest poll, released by the Public Opinion Foundation on February 13, has shown that 85 percent of Russian citizens trust President Vladimir Putin and 74 percent say they would vote for him if presidential elections were held next weekend.
Putin’s approval rating is up from 75 percent in February 2014. The share of those who said they were ready to vote for Putin was also up from 45 percent one year ago.
Post by TsarSamuil on Mar 25, 2015 22:51:57 GMT -5
‘Clearly anti-Russian’ – Moscow blasts latest US national security strategy.
RT.com March 25, 2015 15:22
The recently approved US National Security Strategy for 2015 has a clear anti-Russian orientation, according to analysis released by Russia’s Security Council (SC).
“The analysis of the strategy conducted by specialists of the Security Council of the Russian Federation indicates that compared to the previous edition of the 2010 the new one is based on clearly anti-Russian tendencies and forms a negative image of our country,” reads the statement released by the top Russian consultative agency on national security.
The strategy is based on the principles of American Exceptionalism and the alleged right for unilateral enforcement of US interests in various parts of the world, the message reads.
The council stated that the changes in the US security concepts could have many negative consequences for relations between the two countries. Moscow foresees that Washington and its allies would apply a lot of effort to attract traditional allies of Russia into the anti-Russian camp and also to diminish Russia’s influence on the post-soviet political space.
The newly adopted security strategy also made Russian experts to come to the conclusion that the US administration would put more effort into perfecting the political technologies behind the so called “color revolutions” – the forced change of lawfully elected regimes through street protests. The probability that these technologies could be used in Russia has increased, the Security Council said in the release.
The SC also noted in the review that the United States clearly intended to continue the course on global dominance, backed by own military forces and by the increasing military potential of NATO.
Russia also expected the US to boost its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. “The military force will continue to be the main tool for backing the US national security and interests,” the release said.
The White House published the newly adopted National Security Strategy for 2015 on February 6. The document details both the major threats to the US as seen from Washington and the ways and means that would be used for dealing with these threats.
n October 2014 the head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Patrushev, openly accused the US of playing a role in the current turmoil in Ukraine and the military conflicts in Georgia and the Caucasus, saying these were direct results of the anti-Russian policy of the US administration.
Patrushev revealed in a press interview that intelligence analysts established that American special services were executing an anti-Russian program that dates back to the 1970s, and is based on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “strategy of weak spots,” the policy of turning the opponent’s potential problems into full-scale crises.
Post by TsarSamuil on Mar 27, 2015 17:43:52 GMT -5
Russia slams Hammond for ‘unacceptable language’ after he names it #1 foreign policy challenge.
RT.com March 26, 2015 21:34
The Russian embassy in the UK has sharply criticized British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond for his harsh words about Russia’s involvement in the Crimean referendum and the crisis in eastern Ukraine during a speech to the diplomatic corps.
“Throwing words around, which reflect an utterly biased view of the Ukrainian crisis, with no place left for interests of real people on the ground and their right to decide for themselves, the Foreign Secretary declared Russia as a menace and a British Foreign Policy number one challenge,” the embassy wrote in statement released on Thursday.
At a reception Wednesday night, Hammond identified Russia as the biggest foreign policy challenge facing the UK, followed by the Islamic State. The Russian embassy criticized the speech as “undiplomatic and unacceptable.”
“Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its aggression in eastern Ukraine are both attacks on the international rules-based system,” the foreign secretary said. “In the place of partnership, Russia has chosen the role of strategic competitor.”
In response, the Russian embassy pointed out that Russia has traditionally been a convenient foe for the United Kingdom. “It seems that standing tall means for Britain having a tall enemy, which Russia fits perfectly at all times, but also attachment to the prejudices of the imperial past, including the idea of containment of Russia.”
Earlier this week, Hammond also spoke out about Russia's role in Ukraine. On Sunday, just a day after the anniversary of the Crimean referendum, the minister said “the annexation of Crimea was illegal and illegitimate in March 2014, and remains illegal and illegitimate in March 2015,” in a statement posted on the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s website.
Hammond went on to call the referendum a “sham” as well as a “fig leaf” for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “land grab.”
Aleskei Pushkov, chairman of the Russian State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, responded to the criticism on Twitter by saying that "Crimea has a lot more right to the status of Russian territory than the Falkland Islands do to having the status of Britain's territory."
Russian attitude to the West still bad with tendency for changes – poll.
RT.com April 02, 2015 15:09
Negative sentiment towards the West persists among Russians. China and Belarus are still the most popular nations with the Russian people.
According to a public opinion poll conducted by the independent research center Levada in late March, 73 percent of Russians were negative towards the United States, whereas for the European Union the figure was 64 percent. Ukraine was the third-least-loved nation on 55 percent.
Only 19 percent of Russians said they had a positive attitude to the US and just 25 percent expressed approval of the EU. Thirty-one percent said they had positive sentiments about Ukraine.
The current figures are an echo of last year’s and slightly differ from the ones registered in February, when Russians’ dislike of the West hit an all-time low.
However, deputy director of the Levada center, Aleksey Grazhdankin, wrote that it was too early to speak about a new tendency. “The fluctuations are not significant and remain roughly consistent with last summer’s,” he said.
Previously Grazhdankin explained the crisis of Russians’ trust in good relations with the West by the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, and on Western sanctions against Russia, which were largely perceived as a tool of economic attrition.
In February, the state-owned Russian research center VTSIOM released a report revealing that 68 percent of Russian citizens feared an increased danger of foreign military aggression. At the same time, 49 percent consider the current state of Russian military as ‘good.’
NATO missile shield in Europe stays, despite understanding over ‘nuclear Iran fairytale’
RT.com April 04, 2015 02:42
Despite a negotiated understanding with Tehran on the nuclear issue, the US is still going ahead with its missile defense installations in Europe, being deployed over a perceived threat from “nuclear Iran” – a pretext which Moscow called a “fairytale.”
“The threat to NATO countries posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles continues to increase… the framework [of the Iran nuclear program] agreement does not change that fact,” NATO’s spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told Sputnik.
Russia’s deputy Prime Minister and a former representative of Moscow to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, was quick to react saying that despite the understanding reached in Switzerland, the controversial missile shield in Europe stays because “the Missile Defense System was never about Iran.”
On Thursday, after 8 days of marathon negotiations, Tehran agreed with world powers to severely limit its uranium enrichment capabilities, practically freezing its atomic research and development for at least a decade, and therefore giving up any potential means to create an alleged atomic weapon.
Washington for years insisted that the missile defense system was intended to protect against potential missile threats from rogue elements such as Iran and North Korea. Russia strongly objected to new unilateral military installations by NATO and proposed the creation of a joint security system, but Washington rejected the idea.
Meanwhile the head of the Russian State Duma Foreign Relations Committee Aleksey Pushkov has called the official American explanation for placing the missile defense system in Europe a “fairytale.”
“NATO won’t give up on the missile shield in Europe? Who would have thought it! These fairytales about a ‘treat’ from Iran and North Korea were for idiots. Now NATO doesn’t even have these fairytales,” Pushkov said on Twitter.
Some political analysts agree with the Russian officials’ assessments.
“I think many would like to hear from [Barack Obama] that Washington and Tehran are now friends, but friends do not threaten each other, and the US missile defense installations in Eastern Europe are still targeting Iran and Russia. All this meaning that America’s geopolitical adversaries remain the same,” Reza Hojjat Shamami, a prominent Iranian political analyst and expert on Eurasian affairs, told Sputnik.
Orhan Gafarli, an expert on Eurasian security with Turkey’s Center for Strategic Analysis, meanwhile told the agency that if deployment of the system continues, it will become “perfectly clear” that the initial US plan was to encircle Russia.
“In this case Washington would find it real hard to keep misleading the world about its real intentions,” he told Sputnik.
Russia’s permanent representative to NATO Alexander Grushko said earlier that NATO’s decision to strengthen its eastern borders are changing the military and political situation in Europe. Such a buildup poses a great risk for Russia, unbalancing a strategic parity, and will be taken into account in military planning.
The alliance recent moves violate the Russia-NATO Founding Act, under which NATO agreed not permanently station “substantial combat forces” near the Russian border in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said this week.
But despite a plan to more than double NATO’s Rapid Response Force stationed close to Russia to include 30,000 military personnel, the alliance still insists that “this presence is rotational and well below any reasonable definition of substantial combat forces.”
Russia sees the recent actions as additional proof that NATO is still an anti-Russian military bloc that has taken advantage of the Ukrainian conflict, using it as a pretext for a military build-up in Eastern Europe.
“NATO is developing its rapid response forces and is boosting its infrastructure near our borders, we are registering attempts to violate nuclear parity and the creation of the European and Asia-Pacific segments of the missile defense systems is being sped up,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week.
US attempts at global domination are futile – Gorbachev.
RT.com April 04, 2015 04:50
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev believes that US attempts to unilaterally rule the world are futile, just as any party which, instead of trying to co-exist with another, struggles to impose global hegemony is doomed to fail.
“We live in a global world, and US attempts to become a ‘lone wolf’ and conduct unilateral operations… they all fail, collapse, but [the US] tries again,” Gorbachev said in an interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel, emphasizing that in a similar fashion anyone else’s “attempts to unilaterally control the world would fail.”
“We should think about how to co-exist in this hard and crazy – yet the sole – world known to a man so far,” Gorbachev added.
Speaking about the current geopolitical situation Gorbachev noted that the international community, particularly the United States, blinded by its “triumph” after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has “failed to make adequate conclusions.”
“So much effort was made to stop the nuclear arms race, the Cold War…we have learned nothing from it. And now there are even talks about war again,” he said.
European countries had a total freedom of choice in terms of what policies to follow, but Americans did their best to “lay their hands on it,” Gorbachev believes.
Earlier, Gorbachev warned Western and Russian leaders against dragging the world into a new Cold War amid the Ukraine crisis. Back in December he said that “there are signs of Cold War” in the recent cooling down of relations between Moscow and Washington. And while Europe must become the locomotive of shaping the new world order to prevent new conflicts, he said it is being pushed in the opposite direction.
US policies, Gorbachev says, are defined by the defense industry which has a heavy influence on the country’s economy, politics, culture and art. “American foreign policies to a great extent are controlled by anything but democratic forces,” he said.
He reiterated his belief that the US needs political and economic reforms similar to ‘Perestroika’ carried out in the Soviet Union during his rule in the 1980s.
On the eve of the 70th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, Gorbachev expressed wishes for Russian people to always be proud of their ancestors and the history of their nation. “A Russian person has reasons for patriotism,” Gorbachev said, adding that anyone who sincerely loves the motherland also loves and engages in everything unfolding there.
“No matter what happens to me, I am not going to flee [Russia], I could have fled, but no, I think it's the last thing to do,” Gorbachev said.
Russia will mark the 70th anniversary of wartime victory on May 9 with military parades in honor of the holiday being held in cities across the country. More than 78,500 people will take part in the parades and almost 2,000 items of military equipment will be put on display.
TsarSamuil: Browser is up, but I was doing other things..
Oct 12, 2020 18:58:52 GMT -5
Slavatar: OK.. Regards.
Oct 13, 2020 8:39:57 GMT -5
славянин: зиг хайль
Oct 22, 2020 15:41:37 GMT -5
славянин: дойчен зальдатен
Oct 22, 2020 15:41:56 GMT -5
Milo I.: Deutscher Sauerbraten?
Oct 28, 2020 9:59:34 GMT -5
White Cossack: Who's the best state leader currently?
Dec 6, 2020 8:57:53 GMT -5
TsarSamuil: Viktor Orban?
Dec 8, 2020 5:55:50 GMT -5
Gopnik: from leader's POV, i'd say Kim Jong Un as in north korea he is not forcing any pics of himself nor making a shit ton of songs praising him unlike his dad and grandfather, but instead he is attempting to get the nation out of the shithole it is in today.
Dec 13, 2020 17:16:43 GMT -5
Gopnik: but 1000000% not kim from a citizen's point of view, the Camps in North Korea are horrible.
Dec 13, 2020 17:18:52 GMT -5
White Cossack: You're both right, fellas.
Dec 18, 2020 11:17:53 GMT -5
eternal jew: indeed goys
Dec 18, 2020 12:13:55 GMT -5