Peace Page

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

St. John of Kronstadt Orthodox

Spiritual Care Centre

THE TRAGEDY IN UKRAINE

"Veterans and children of the Great Patriotic War:
to the Government and people of Germany".

By events in Ukraine

Today, when the German government decided

to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons, the

world has changed — the silhouettes of a

new world war are more than clearly

outlined! And again - Germany!

But there are honest people in Germany, anti-

fascists, and we hope that this Message will

fall into their hands. People born between

1927 and 1945 have the status of "war

children" in Russia.

All those who survived that war can subscribe to this letter.
We think that actual signatures are not necessary, we
suggest that veterans (or "war children") read them
this letter, independently or with someone's help,

and send us (at the coordinates indicated
below) something like the following:

Moscow, Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich, 90 years old, disabled
war veteran (or otherwise), Hero of the Soviet Union
(or Holder of the Order of Glory... or otherwise),
was repatriated to Germany during the war
(or otherwise).

Or just the city, full name, and age. The

main thing, is that they should be real

people who are familiar with the text.

MESSAGE TEXT

We, the last veterans and all the peoples of

Russia who survived that great and terrible

war, are now on the verge of death! Our

time is already running out. For a huge

part of our lives, we hoped we would

come to the end of it, in peace -

without all-destroying hatred!

For the painfully long decades after the Second World War,
we overcame our righteous anger! I long for retribution for
the innumerable wounds, spiritual and physical, that we
still carry in our bodies and our hearts! And most of us
have forgiven! And not in a small way due to the fact
that Germany for many years has demonstrated its
repentance its understanding of what it has done!
And we have overcome, not only ourselves, but
also the voice of the blood of our barbarically
exterminated relatives! By whom?
Germans ...fascists!

We have forgiven... following the laws of human

coexistence! So it was... until 2014. And then,

in 2014, when everything began in Ukraine...

we looked with hope at Germany and at the

then Chancellor Angela Merkel. We couldn't
imagine that after all that the Germans did

in Ukraine, after Babi Yar, after mountains

of mutilated corpses, they would still look

with lust at the Ukrainian fields that can

feed Europe today! Or they, the Germans,

who have covered the Crimea they once

promised with blood, will still somehow
be interested in turning the Crimea into
an American and in general a NATO
base, ideal for aggression against
Russia! Which would be clearly

aimed at a future war.

After all, only fools do not understand the meaning and
goals of the entire coup in Ukraine... in the conditions
of which Russia behaved in the only possible way! But
the Germans are not fools! We the Russians, know for
certain your psychology, as "brothers in blood" - our
blood, which you "prudently" shed in rivers!

We remember your "systematic methods of

population reduction"! Our population! Until

now, in different parts of our once united

Homeland, where the boot of German

fascism was trodden, we find hidden

mass graves of our civilians: in the

Novgorod region, in the Kuban, in

the Rostov region, in Karelia. In

Belarus, in 2021... hundreds of

civilian remains... were found

in Brest ...on the site of the

Jewish ghetto the Trostenets

concentration camp.... near

Minsk terrible in its tragedy

revealed the secret of the

remains... of thousands of

tortured and killed people!

We are talking about tens of thousands of newly
discovered victims of Nazism! This blood - still
cries out for revenge - and for decades the
memory of the barbarously destroyed

Russian people, and monuments to
Russian soldiers, liberators, have
been desecrated with impunity!

And the new Nazis are marching in the Baltic

States and Ukraine, in front of the entire

"civilized" world! But in 2014, we were

sincerely convinced -- that in this new

Nazi demarche it's the Germans who

will be our associates in preventing

this meanness!

We hoped that, guided by an elementary

conscience, the Germans would not

participate.. in an obviously fascist

anti-state coup in Ukraine! After all

...the subsequent catastrophe of

modern Ukraine was committed

by direct descendants of those

who were special bastards in

the German army! Clearly,

openly!

Americans and Canadians have only hidden and preserved
this diabolical heritage, feeding this generation, but the
product of this evil... is Germany! Hitler's Germany! And
it was impossible for us to believe that it was Germany
that would again give a "road map" to these inhumans!
But we were wrong! Germany has once again allowed
these fascist geeks to enter the world!

The support of modern Germany - in the face of

the new government of Ukraine-Bandera, the

heirs of the SS division " Galicia ", the thugs

of the UPA OUN and all other abominations;

is simply unthinkable for us! This is beyond

all that is human! But you, Germany, have
already done it and continue to do it! You

have, once again, set your sights on the

Slavic world and these geeks are blood

from the blood of German Nazism! And

again to Russia!

Only, even more despicable: inciting our closest
Ukrainian brothers against us! And you know it!
You know this as well as we do! You killed one
nation in that Great War! Yes, we are
one people!

The truth is written and often spoken about

by your own Steinmeier, who at the same

time viciously took a direct part in the

Kiev coup of 2014 — fascist in fact!

This American may not be clear about some-

thing, but it's more than that, for you! And

after all, it was your vykormysh.. that got

ready.. for their torchlight processions in

Kiev! The living shadow of Nazi Germany

is behind all this. It was only temporarily

covered up by sly diplomacy — "helmets

instead of guns"! But that's it, "masks

are reset"! Your supply of German

weapons to Ukraine today, is

natural, it is in the logic of

your policy of recent

decades.

Today it is clearly pro-fascist! You have taken

this step: German weapons will kill Russians

again! Keep killing. During the years of the

conflict in the Donbas, your professional

killers have already killed Russians, at

least by teaching them... "how to kill

correctly"! Only now -- it's even more

despicable — you're teaching this to

- your blood brothers! Donbass is on

your conscience! Thousands of lives

of its peaceful citizens --- again your

handiwork! We do not care about the

role of Americans, in everything that

happens: there, is money-God! We,

veterans of that war, its children,

are concerned about the role of

the Germans! Because it is you

who know -- exactly -- who the

Ukrainian "national battalions"

consist of --- and could have

prevented and stopped, this

new fascism ! But they did

not do it! And just by doing

this — you are once again,

responsible to history!

And you are definitely participating -- in the

preparation of Ukraine for war with Russia!

You can't help but understand the purpose

of everything that happened --- from the

unconstitutional coup in Kiev ....to the

bloodshed in the Donbass! But, in fact

this is preparation for the Third World

War! And again, you are Germans...

Germany! We hear from the high

German rostrum in Berlin today:

"Russia will pay a high price"!!!

This is the German Chancellor's

speech! Unthinkable! We have

already paid the price — 27

million of our lives! Isn't that

enough for you?! What price

are you still talking about?

There is no home --- in Russia, Ukraine and

Belarus - where "this price" isn't paid! And

there is no home in Germany, that did

not participate in that terrible, bloody

barbarism! It's scary! It's wild! And

today, there are, already, more than

13 thousand dead Russian people

in the Donbass at the hands of

the new Nazis!

The German Chancellor's public mockery of the

Russian genocide in the Donbas is a crime in

itself! How much can the lessons of history

be misunderstood and discredited! The

scariest story in the world! Do you want

to be even scarier?! After all, this new

"Dranch nach Oschtern" ..may lead to

the fact that the 2nd Nuremberg trial

over you will no longer be - there will

simply be no humanity! You won't be

here! But a special Ecumenical trial

of you Germans is inevitable! Over

all aggressors — but over you

ESPECIALLY!

World justice will be served! And we, the last

veterans of that terrible war, are leaving this

world as witnesses! Witnesses for the

PROSECUTION! And today the victory

will be ours, but those who died

yesterday, or those of us who

will die today, already bear

witness to the role of the

German people, in the

history of the human

world — a bloody

history!

German weapons are back in the

hands of Nazi thugs! Please stop!

Email addresses for information:

veterans1945@yandex.ru

https://t.me/Veteran_v_stroy_chat

- Russian Union of Veterans: organizing

questions and collecting signatures of

veterans and children of the Second

World War

****************************

veteran1944@yandex.ru -questions about

this publication to its author: Monk John
(Adlivankin), Deputy Head of the Russian
Orthodox Church. head and ved.

specialist of the St. Peter's

Orthodox Counseling Centre.

St. John of Kronstadt.

__________________________________

If you want the truth about
the massacre of civilans
in Bucha - paste the
web address below
into your browser

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6ZHPL2pTuadJ/

US Systematically Removed Trust

and Transparency Safeguards

Preventing Nuclear War,

Ignores Remainder

by Morgan Artyukhina

January 28th, 11:13pm (Sputnik)

During and after the Cold War, when NATO and the

Warsaw Pact armies faced each other down,

backed by nuclear arsenals, the two sides

reached agreements to make war much

less likely.

However, the US has systematically pulled them apart

in its quest to maintain global dominance --- making
the present situation significantly more dangerous.

As the US threatens to send thousands of troops
to Eastern Europe... joining an already-boosted

an Enhanced Forward Presence by the NATO

alliance, claiming... it needs to deter an

imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine,

it is proving inflexible... toward any

defense considerations of Russia,

on whose border, several NATO

members sit.

The situation has Russian leaders, who have patiently

and publicly articulated their concerns in Eastern

Europe - as a way to resolve the present crisis -

flummoxed. The US has demanded that Russia

pull its troops back from parts of Russia's

territory near the Ukrainian border,

claiming they pose an inherent

threat to Ukraine.

However, Moscow has denied any intent to invade,

saying that its troops are engaged in drills, and
asserting its sovereign right to send soldiers

anywhere on its territory. Ironically... the
Ukrainian leaders have also downplayed
US claims that an invasion threat exists.

The situation is so volatile because of years of

building tension in the region, while at the

same time, many of the safeguards

intended to keep tensions and

suspicions low have been

removed or ignored by

the United States.

1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty

The first blow was struck in 2001, when then-US

President George W. Bush, unilaterally pulled

the US out of the ABM treaty, which limited

the US and Russia - the Soviet Union when

the treaty was signed - to two complexes

of ballistic missile interceptors.

It had been feared in the early 1970s that recent

technological developments, such as multiple

independent reentry vehicles (MIRV), could

provoke a dangerous arms race, in which,

a nuclear first strike might seem like the

advantageous option for a nation with

such a defensive network.

By limiting defensive measures to a set of interceptors

around the capital city and another around a complex

of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos, the

US and USSR believed the threat of war

was diminished.

Bush claimed... the treaty had left the US vulnerable to

attack and created the Missile Defense Agency at the

Pentagon to oversee a new generation of air defense

systems, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area

Defense (THAAD), Patriot PAC-3, and Ground-

Based Midcourse Defense.

However, just 18 months prior, then-US President Bill

Clinton had joined Russian President Vladimir Putin

in calling the ABM Treaty the “cornerstone of

strategic stability.”

As predicted, the treaty’s removal sparked an arms

race, with Moscow dusting off old plans for hyper-

sonic weapons which it unveiled in 2017, in order

to compensate for Washington’s dramatically

increased protection from ballistic
missile attack.

2002 Treaty of Moscow/ New START (Almost)

The Treaty Between the USA - and the Russian
Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions

(SORT), also called, simply, the Treaty of

Moscow, was a simple arms limitation

treaty. Russia and the US agreed to
limit their nuclear arsenals to
between 1,700 and 2,200

operationally deployed

warheads each.

The deal had many faults, including that no warheads

were destroyed, meaning they could be put into

storage and then unpacked in 2012, when the

treaty expired - and expire it did, albeit also

being superseded by the New Strategic

Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)

in 2011.

New START called for halving the number of strategic

nuclear missile launchers, and established a new

inspection and verification regime, although, it

also did not get rid of the storage loophole.

The administration of former US President Donald

Trump fully intended for New START to die, when

it expired in February 2021, but after he lost the

November 2020 election to US President Joe

Biden, a new leader came into office just

weeks before the expiration --- and
renewed it for another five years.

1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty

Similarly to the ABM Treaty, the US unilaterally pulled

out of the INF Treaty in 2019. However, instead of

simply stating it wished to develop weapons

beyond the treaty’s limitations, the Trump

administration accused Moscow of

violating the treaty by lying about

the range of its 9M728/9M729

missiles used by Iskander

missile systems.

Nonetheless, within 2 weeks of the US’ formal

departure from the treaty, in August 2019, it

began testing the first of multiple missiles

that violated the treaty’s limitations.

The origins of the INF Treaty lay in a dramatic

showdown, across Europe, in late 1983,

triggered by Washington’s deployment

of ITS Pershing-II intermediate-range

ballistic missiles (IRBM) to Europe.

With a 900-mile range, a flight apogee of just 60 miles,

and a maneuverable, radar-guided reentry vehicle,

the missile could put an 80-kiloton nuclear war-

head on Moscow in between 6 and 11 minutes

...according to Pentagon leaders. Such a fast

strike time gave the Soviets just minutes to

identify, analyze and respond to the threat,

greatly increasing the risk of them mis-

reading a situation and launching a

mistaken nuclear return volley,

believing it to be their

only chance.

In addition, tensions in Europe had already been

ramped up by years of psychological operations

designed to increase Soviet anxieties, such as

US bombers charging Soviet borders and

turning away at the last second

That’s why, when NATO began the vast, ultra-realistic

“Able Archer-83” war games, simulating an all-out

attack on the Soviet Union, in November 1983,
it put Soviet fears through the roof.

However, it wasn’t until after the war games had

concluded, several days later, that NATO

commanders discovered key signs: the

Soviets had loaded hundreds of strike

aircraft in East Germany and Poland

with nuclear bombs, and orders to

strike “front-line targets” at a

moment’s notice.

The INF Treaty eliminated missiles like the Pershing-II,

banning land-based missiles with ranges of between

500 klms and 5,500 klms. This significantly cooled

tensions in Europe... although the treaty was only

between the US and Soviet Union -- now Russia --

which left other countries, such as China, free to

develop their own intermediate-range missiles.

The INF’s absence now is especially poignant,

considering the long-standing Russian fears

over a NATO Aegis Ashore missile system,

built on a land base in Deveselu, Romania.

While the US claimed the system was purely

defensive, Moscow noted... that Aegis can

also be used to launch offensive missiles.

Among the missiles tested after the INF Treaty lapsed

was a land-based Tomahawk missile with a range of

1,600 kilometres - a cruise missile US Aegis

cruisers have fired at sea for years.

1992 Treaty on Open Skies

The Open Skies treaty... was an attempt to increase

transparency and put to rest fears of an impending

attack by the other side. The deal allowed 35

partner nations to perform reconnaissance

overflights over other nations... using

specialized aircraft with specialized

equipment. However, flights could

not interfere with other military

activities and could be refused

by the overflown nation, for a

variety of reasons.

The US sent signs it was interested in leaving the

treaty as early as 2019, claiming it was caused

by Russia refusing US Open Skies aircraft

access to several areas almost a decade

earlier - denials Moscow insisted were

within its rights under the treaty.

The US finally made the move on May 21ST 2020,

meaning the six-month cooldown time had the

US leaving the treaty, after the November
2020 elections, that Trump lost.

The decision sparked an outcry across Europe,
with Ukraine being one of the loudest critics;

that nation having long used Open Skies to
perform overflights in western Russia, to
calm its nerves about troops and

installations there.

Indeed, the Open Skies Treaty was drafted precisely to

avoid the type of anxious confrontation... unfolding on

the Russia-Ukraine border, over the last two months.

The Democrats publicly attacked Trump’s withdrawal

as illegal then... although much of their criticism

focused on his refusal to notify Congress before

pulling out. However, in March 2021, a leaked

message --- sent to concerned “international

partners” by the Biden administration said

it was afraid that doing so “would send

the wrong message to Russia and

undermine our position... on the

broader arms control agenda.”

Istanbul, Astana Declarations

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe (OSCE) has its origins in the November

1972 multilateral talks in Espoo, Finland

...intended to further the peaceful

cooperation of the Detente era.

Today, the OSCE has 57 members and 11 observers

and continues to serve as a regional forum for

resolving international issues.

Two of its most important declarations of principles

came at summits in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1999 and in

Astana (now Nur-Sultan), Kazakhstan, in 2010,

which, among other topics, affirmed each

nation’s right to its own security in the

context of an international community.

"The security of each participating State... is

inseparably linked to that of all others. Each

participating State, has an equal right to

security. We reaffirm the inherent right

of each and every participating State

...to be free to choose or change its

security arrangements, including

treaties of alliance, as
they evolve.''

''Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each

participating State will respect the rights of
all others in these regards. They will not

strengthen their security ...at the

expense of... the security of

other States.'' the Astana

declaration states.

While the OSCE met in Vienna, Austria, 2 weeks ago,

the talks yielded no major breakthrough. Earlier this

week -- when the US and NATO delivered separate

written responses to Russia’s December security

proposal -- the US response was considerably

more intransigent, while NATO’s, sent from

Brussels and speaking for 30 member

states, acknowledged the Russian

security concerns and proposed

mutual briefings in the NATO-

Russia Council and the re-

establishment of their

respective envoys in

Moscow & Brussels.

However, neither reply gave deference to Russia’s

central concern --- the eastward expansion of

NATO and the impact that has on Russian

security, especially since now, the US

explicitly regards Russia as a

challenger to its position
...as leader of the post-
Cold War global order.

Speaking on Thursday, about the US response,

in particular, Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey

Lavrov said "The principle that one should not
strengthen one's security -- at the expense of

the security of others is deliberately avoided.

Neither the Istanbul or Astana declarations
are mentioned by our Western partners
in the discussions on European

security that are currently

taking place. We cannot

accept this.”

Morgan Artyukhina is a writer and news editor at

Sputnik’s Washington, DC, bureau... focusing on

international & breaking news. Born in southern
Maryland, she studied Russian, Central, and

East European Studies, at the University of

Glasgow and is a former history professor.

At Sputnik, she covers military technology,

the expanding neoliberal police state, and

the ongoing struggles against it in the US

and around the globe.

Greece And France Take First Step

Towards European Independence

Following AUKUS Debacle

September 28th (South Front)

by Paul Antonopoulos,

independent geopolitical analyst

Signing of Franco-Greek Agreement is the

beginning of supplanting NATO in Europe.

Of the 30 NATO member states, Greece is one of the few

to spend well over 2% of its GDP on defense, as agreed

upon by NATO Defence Ministers, in 2006. However,

Greece’s high spending (relative to GDP), is not

because it is positioning itself as a buffed-up

military state opposed to Russia, as per the

aims of NATO, but rather, to defend itself

against the threats of another NATO

member, Turkey.

With NATO consistently downplaying Turkish aggression

against Greece and the new AUKUS pact creating

distrust between the Anglosphere and the

Europeans... Greece has ensured new

extra security assurances against

its long-time enemy.

Greece’s strengthened partnership with France highlights

that the immediate consequences of the AUKUS alliance

are already being felt, as the two countries are making

the first serious steps towards a Europe independent

of Washington.

Alexis Papahelas, one of Greece’s top journalists, explained

that the Franco-Greek security pact is Macron’s “revenge”

against the Americans as it will strengthen European

autonomy. He also confirmed persistent rumours

that a defensive pact between France and

Greece was almost reached last year,

but ultimately broke down at the

last minute for “unknown

reasons.”

To put the situation in context, Greece for a year and a half-

received bids from six countries, including France, the U.S.

and UK for brand new navy frigates. The finalization of a

deal was continuously delayed... due to Greece’s

insistence, that a frigate purchase must
include a defense agreement.

Greece signed its 12-month Mutual Defense Cooperation

Agreement (MDCA) with the US last year, but ultimately

did not decide on which frigate bid to accept. With

negotiations for a Franco-Greek defence pact

last year stalling, Athens ultimately decided

to sign the MDCA... with Washington. This

was rumored to be partially motivated

as part of 'negotiations' to pressure

the French to accept Greek terms.

However, with the sudden emergence of AUKUS, European

trust in the Anglosphere quickly diminished, and thus

galvanized Franco-Greek discussions on European

independence. And finally, a deal to purchase

three brand-new French Belharra-class

frigates, was stricken.

For his part, Mitsotakis said on Tuesday morning at the

signing of the agreement that:- “It is an historic day
for Greece and France. Today’s development is an

initiative that responds to the demands of the

times on our continent. It paves the way for

an autonomous and strong Europe of the

future. Whether there is a timetable for

creating a European army: the debate

on European military autonomy,

evolves. Options such as this

corporate defense partner-

ship, move to this central

strategic choice.”

Effectively, Greece and France are advocating for a pan-

European military that would likely drive out NATO, as

the premier defensive pact in Europe.

Another demonstration that this pact is aimed at

supplanting NATO... is its careful wording.

Although Turkey was not mentioned

explicitly, there is little doubt that

part of the motivation for the

Franco-Greek defense pact

was Turkey’s unilateral

aggression in the

Mediterranean.

Even just minutes after the signing of the Franco-Greek

agreement, former Dutch diplomat Fons Stoelinga

tweeted: “EU autonomy in security and defense.

NATO still does not address the problem of

NATO-member Turkey destabilizing the

whole Eastern Mediterranean region.

France and Greece now react and

signed a security bilateral pact.”

The mutual defense assistance clause of the agreement

ensures that if Greece or France is attacked on its

territory, the other will come to assist, even if the

attacking country is part of other alliances.....

including NATO. This is an obvious message

directed towards Turkey, a NATO member

that on a daily basis violates Greek air-

space and threatens to invade its

Aegean islands.

These violations and threats receive no repercussions from

NATO as individual members are unwilling to risk their

economic relations with the country, whilst many

NATO leaders still believe that Turkey is a

bulwark against Russia.

France for most of its modern history, but especially

galvanized under President Emmanuel Macron.. had

an ambition of creating a more independent Europe.

The European experience under former U.S.

President, Donald Trump, and the recent

snub from President Joe Biden, with the

AUKUS debacle... has only increased
the urgency of achieving European

independence from Washington.

Despite this ambition, as well as warning Europe that it will

become secondary in world affairs, if it does not become

independent, it appears that France can finally kickstart

its project alongside Greece.

Achieving EU unity is a difficult prospect, because minnow

states like Lithuania prioritize the interests of Washington

rather than the continent, but as Paris and Athens have

shown --- they will move ahead, in changing the geo-

political balance in the Mediterranean and will not

wait, while member states continuously bicker

amongst themselves on foreign policy issues.

If France and Greece can create strong foundations for an

independent Europe, it will only be inevitable before more

EU member states become interested in also being

integrated into a continental structure that is

independent of transatlantic alliances.

How Exceptional America Is

by Eric Zuesse

September 30th, 2020

America is becoming exceptionally exceptional. In some votes

at the UN General Assembly - the Assembly of nations - only

Israel, or one or two other U.S. allies, vote along with it, and

all others either vote against it, or else abstain in order to

prevent U.S. retaliation against their own nation. No other

nation is anything like that. In fact, on many occasions,

the U.S. arm-twists other delegations -- in order to get

them to abstain from voting so as to make less stark,

and less embarrassing, America’s international

isolation. But America is also extraordinarily

exceptional in other ways, which have

nothing to do with the UN.

America is truly an exceptional nation. As the

Republican Party magazine National Review

stated, on September 15th, “Last week,

the US and Israel were the only states
to vote against a General Assembly
resolution on the coronavirus
response. Some have seized
upon that vote to paint the

USt as a bad faith actor
that stands alone
in the world.”

However, this vote wasn’t about only “the global

coronavirus response.” It was — perhaps even

more importantly - about U.S. sanctions against

Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Russia, China, and other

countries that the U.S. regime considers to be

its enemies. (None of these countries ever

invaded or even threatened to invade

the USA; all of those sanctions are

100% U.S. aggression.

They are target-countries that America’s aristocracy

wants to take over. (The world’s U.S.-sanctioned

countries are marked in red -- on the map of the

world below.) Israel strongly supports sanctions

against both Syria and Venezuela, and routinely

invades and bombs Syria just for good measure.

So, it joined America’s position on that.

That UN General Assembly vote was held on September

11th. America’s Associated Press bannered the next day,

“UN assembly approves pandemic resolution; US, Israel

object”, and reported that, “The 193-member world body

adopted the resolution by a vote of 169-2, with Ukraine

and Hungary abstaining. It was a strong show of unity

by the UN’s most representative body, though many

countries had hoped for adoption by consensus.”

The AP further stated:

It calls on governments and international financial institutions

“to provide more liquidity in the financial system, especially

in all developing countries.” It supports recovery plans that

“drive transformative change towards more inclusive and

just societies, including by empowering and engaging all

women and girls.”

And it urges UN member nations “to adopt a climate- and

environment-responsive approach to COVID-19 recovery

efforts”, including by aligning investments and domestic

policies with the UN goals & the 2015 Paris agreement

to combat climate change. …

By a vote of 132-3, the assembly amended the resolution to

urge all countries “to refrain from promulgating and applying

any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in

accordance with international law and the Charter of the

United Nations that impedes the full achievement of

economic and social development, particularly in

developing countries.”

The United States was then overwhelmingly defeated in

attempts to remove 2 paragraphs from the resolution,

one referring to women’s rights to “sexual and

reproductive health” --- and the other --- to

“promoting global sustainable transport.”

In addition to arguing against the language on sanctions,

the United States opposed all references to the World

Health Organization, which the US administration had

stopped funding, accusing the UN agency of failing

to do enough to stop the virus from spreading

when it first surfaced in China.

Nowhere in the AP’s article was any mention made that

in the “vote of 169-2,” the two nations which had voted

against the Resolution were the US and Israel, but only

that there had been “objections from the United States

and Israel,” regarding attachment, to the Resolution, of

the Amendment that added the anti-sanctions provision

to it. This omission was not an error. It is a type of

omission that is common in propaganda. America

was more isolated than that ‘news’-report

made clear.

This vote was about only a “Resolution,” a statement of

the various nations’ values, to work toward, not about

any nation’s policy, but the U.S. and Israel don’t share

those goals — not even rhetorically. This opposition

to that Resolution’s goals, was truly exceptional.

In particular, nothing is more abhorrent to the US regime

--- than to stop or impede its sanctions. These sanctions

include, for example, punishments against any company

or government that will, in any way, assist in Russia’s 96%

completed NordStream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany,

for the EU to buy Russia’s pipelined natural gas instead of

America’s fracked, canned, shipped, natural gas. The U.S.

regime insists that EU nations buy the far costlier trans-

Atlantic-shipped fracked US liquefied natural gas (LNG).

That insistence upon the EU’s wasting money, in order to

prop-up America’s fracking industry, is, indeed, exceptional,

because European nations haven’t customarily been treated

as being mere colonies of other powers. America is treating

purchasers from, or cooperators with, that competitor (Russia),

as being its enemies. The way the U.S. Representative stated

this (after a lengthy diatribe which blamed China for Covid-19

and said that the U.S. had quit the World Health Organization

because WHO lacked “independence from the Chinese

Communist Party”) was: “Economic sanctions are a

legitimate means to achieve foreign policy, security,

and other national and international objectives, and

the United States is not alone in that view or in that

practice.” (That exact same sentence had, earlier,

been stated by the US regarding a different matter,

on 18 November 2019.) Actually, the U.S. regime is

very “alone” on it. Furthermore, the other part was

also a lie: the U.S. regime asserts that coercing

corporations and countries to not buy from the

lowest-cost supplier, is within its sovereign

right to do.

However, as Professor Alfred de Zayas, who until recently was

the UN’s top expert on this topic, explained in depth on 27th

June 2019, that assertion is blatantly false, on many clear

grounds concerning international law. It is a blatant lie, no

matter how many times the U.S. regime asserts it (and

asserts that the US regime isn’t “alone” in asserting it).

Even back when Barack Obama (the man who repeatedly

claimed that “The United States is and remains, the one

indispensable nation”) was America’s President, the US

was exceptional at the United Nations. For example, on

24th November 2014, I headlined “U.S. Among Only 3

Countries Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-

Denial”, and reported that - “In a UN vote, on

November 21st, only 3 countries - the US,
Ukraine, and Canada — voted against a
resolution to condemn racist fascism,

or nazism, and to condemn denial of
Germany’s World War II Holocaust
against, primarily, Jews.''

This measure passed the General Assembly, on a vote of 115

in favour, 3 against, & 55 abstentions (the abstentions were

in order not to offend U.S. President Obama, who was

opposed to the resolution).” Then, on 21 June 2015,

I headlined “America’s UN Ambassador Continues

Standing Up for Nazis” and noted that, again,

Obama’s UN Ambassador, Samantha Power,

had stood up for nazism; she had just

delivered an address -- in Ukraine --

rallying that country’s supporters

of nazism to war against Russia.

Then, on 21 November 2017, I headlined “Trump

Continues Obama’s Support of Nazism”, and

reported that:

On November 16th, US President Donald Trump, acting

through an agent of his agent, UN Ambassador Nikki

Haley, voted at the UN against a resolution that

condemns bigotry, and especially condemns

nazism & all forms of racism. He thus, yet

again, continues in the tradition from his

predecessors, Presidents Obama, and

Bush, each year, placing this nation in

the company of only one or two U.S.

allies throughout the world who join

with the US in refusing to commit to

opposing and doing everything to

reduce, not just political Nazism

(which, of course, is past), but

ideological nazism, racist

fascism - institutionalized

bigotry (which, sadly, is

not past).

But, be that as it may, the U.S. is also exceptional in

many other ways. I listed some of those on July 13th.

There are two main reasons why the U.S. regime is able

to coerce other nations to not violate its will. One is that

although publicly available reports allege it spends

approximately 37% of the entire world’s military

expenditures, the U.S. regime actually - spends

around 50% of the entire world’s military costs,

and therefore, it possesses an extraordinary

physical capacity to impose its will, if and

when merely economically blockading an

‘enemy’ country (via sanctions) fails to
do the job of getting it to comply.

And the other main reason is that, since the US government

is at least as corrupt as the average “third-world” country is,

but is instead one of the world’s richest countries, arranging

pay-offs to other world leaders, in order to obtain their

cooperation, is easily affordable... (These payoffs are

being paid by all US.taxpayers, not by only America’s

billionaires, who reap all of the profits from the

empire that is imposed.)

American exceptionalism is real. It’s not the type of

exceptionalism that the regime’s propaganda claims

to be the case, but, nonetheless, it is real.

(Strategic Culture Foundation)

Full Text: Official Declaration
of the Malorossiyan Federation

Zakharchenko announces a new federal state, Malorossiya,
(means ''Little Russia'') as the legal successor of Ukraine.
DONi News Agency

On 18.7.2017 the Head of the Donetsk People's Republic,
Alexander Zakharchenko, declared the creation of a new
federal state, Malorossiya, which will become the legal
successor of 'Ukraine'. The new state formation, will
consist of 19 regions of the former Ukraine with the
capital in Donetsk city. Kiev remains a historical
and cultural centre, without the status of
capital city.

Here is the full English translation of the declaration:

Political Declaration

The project of the state of "Ukraine", formulated 150 years ago
and implemented in different versions during the 20th century,
has reached its logical conclusion --- and led to the country's
disintegration, civil war and the death of tens of thousands
of people, including children, women, and elderly people.

And this process is irreversible. An attempt to turn the story back
will result in "balkanization" of the conflict, expansion of chaos,
escalation of civil war and even bigger numbers of casualties.

To stop the civil war and avoid new victims, we representatives
of the majority of the regions of former "Ukraine" assembled
in Donetsk on July 18, 2017, discussed the current situation
and came to the following conclusions:

- the state of "Ukraine" has revealed itself as a failed state and
demonstrated its being incapable of granting its inhabitants
a peaceful and prosperous present and future;

- the current authorities – elected in Kiev, after the coup d'etat,
against the backdrop of political terror and the absence
of elections in the Crimea and Donbass, are illegitimate;

- the state of "Ukraine" is on the brink of
economic catastrophe and depopulation;

- an ultranationalist coup is brewing in Kiev, as a result
of which outright neo-Nazis will come to power
insteadof "Banderites with a European face";

- the Ukrainian nationalistic project (the Galician one)
has discredited itself, by the shedding of civilians'
blood in the country;

- the ideology of "Ukrainism" has proved to be misanthropic,
mixed with xenophobia (Russophobia, anti-Semitism,
Polonophobia) and neo-Nazism (the ideology of
national exclusivity and superiority);

- resulting from historical development and due to the Maidan,
the word "Ukraine" is forever associated with the names of
the Nazi accomplices, Bandera and Shukhevich, with the
tragedies of the Baby Yar, the Volyn massacre & Khatyn,
and, nowadays, with the mass murder of people on the
Maidan, in the Trade Unions' House in Odessa, and
Genocide of the Donbass people.

On the basis of the above, we believe that the state of
"Ukraine", in the form it was established, after the
collapse of the USSR, is UNSERVICEABLE.

We, representatives of the regions of the former "Ukraine",
propose to re-establish the state and to proclaim the state
of MALOROSSIYA, under an historical background, out of
the former "Ukraine". In this case, it is of fundamental
importance to rename the country, since "Ukraine"
as a state, is guilty of war crimes, mass terror
and the genocide of its own people.

In turn, the new name of the country, based on historical
traditions, will enable us to reunify those pieces of the
former "Ukraine" that seemed to have parted ways
forever, including because of participation in the
civil war, on different sides of the front line.

We must turn the page of our people's history, which
is flooded with the blood of our brothers and sisters.

Malorossiya is an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN state, with
a new name, a new flag, a new constitution, a new state
structure, new principles of social and economic
development, and new historical prospectives.

But this is NOT A REVOLUTION ! This is a return to
history. This is a novelty that restores, not destroys.

In view of the economic plight of the country, the chaos
& disintegration potential, and regarding the possibility
of launching a "war of all against all", we consider it
necessary to declare a state of emergency for the
transition period – up to 3 years. During this time,
the process of adoption of the new Constitution
and the establishment of the rule of law,
should be completed.

Under a state of emergency, a ban on the activities of
political parties and foreign funds is to be introduced,
& penalties for criminal offenses, especially against
the person, are to be increased. The fight against
corruption will be toughened, as well as the
penalties for it.The shadow arms market is
to be eliminated, including by registering
weapons in accordance with the new law.

In the same period an investigation is to be carried
out, with the involvement of foreign specialists –-
from Russia, Belarus & the European Union –- into
the crimes committed by the Maidan Kiev regime:
the murders on the Maidan, the murder of Odessa
citizens in the Trade Unions' House on May 2nd,
2014, and the war crimes in Donbass, in the
so-called ATO.

In the same period, the People's Tribunal is to be
prepared to charge the state criminals who have
led the country into disintegration and civil war:
V.F. Yanukovich (with a request to Russia for his
extradition), P.A. Poroshenko and his clique:
Turchinov, Yatsenyuk, Kolomoisky, Paruby,
Nalivaichenko and others.

We are sure that, having recovered from the criminal
neo-Nazi ideology of "Ukrainism", we will be able to
build a new society on the basis of friendship and
mutual assistance -- but not hatred and envy. The
creative genius of our people will manage to bring
Malorossiya to the forefront of global civilization
and play a role in history. The role of Good,
and Truth.

Official translation by the DONi
Donbass News Agency, 07/18/2017

(Source - Russia Insider)

_____________________________________________

Nato – A Dangerous Alliance
May 24th

As Nato ends its summit in Brussels, Rae Street explains
why the military alliance remains a threat to world peace

When the Warsaw Pact ended, after the collapse of communism,
some optimists might have expected Nato to be broken up too.
After all, the Labour Party in Britain had been opposed to Nato
in the mid-1980s. But that was not to be. The US, which had
always dominated Nato, quickly began to reinvent Nato
and furthermore, to expand it.

Following the end of the Warsaw Pact many central and east
European governments wanted to join Nato. This, of course,
was music to the ears of the US military manufacturers.
Indeed, the chair of the expand Nato committee, Bruce
Jackson, was technical director of Lockheed Martin,
the largest military manufacturer in the world. So, for
the new Nato members because of the policy on
“interoperability,” that is Nato personnel being
able to use the same military equipment, it
was out with the old Soviet military hard-
ware and in with sales of, for example,
Lockheed’s military aircraft ,costing
millions of dollars.

This continues to this day in countries which can ill afford
it, with struggling economies. The latter includes Greece.
Think of the situation in Greece today.

Expanding Nato up to the borders with Russia, was a
provocative policy. The dangers were pointed out but
the military industrial complex and the “hawks” in
the West, took no notice.

To this day, this helps President Vladimir Putin:
more and more of the Russian people believe
that “the West” is against them.

Decades later, we read: “British troops have arrived in
Estonia, as part of a major Nato mission in the Baltic
states, to deter Russian aggression.”

From the start, Nato has always held a nuclear
armed policy. It continues to claim that nuclear
weapons “preserve peace.” Manifestly, nuclear
weapons do not deter conflict.

Governments, including Britain’s, now analyse the main
threats to security as cyber warfare and terrorism.
Remember September 11th 2001, when New York
was attacked by terrorists in planes,
brandishing knives?

The US then had and still has, 13 nuclear armed Trident
submarines, of which several will be roaming the seas
fully operational. Britain has four, with one constantly
on alert at sea.

Were these any use in the madman’s attack
on Westminster, or in any terrorist attacks?

Trident is “integrated” into Nato. Even worse, Nato
still has a policy of “first use of nuclear weapons.”

When the then minister of defence, Geoff Hoon, was
asked in Parliament why Britain has a policy of “first
use,” he replied: “Because of our obligations
to Nato.”

Under the direction of the US administration, with its
policy of global domination, Nato has established a
string of nuclear-armed bases across Europe, in
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and
Turkey, at Incirlik.

The latter is now causing deep problems as relations
between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the
US, become more and more fractious.

There is now a real problem for Nato, as Erdogan is a
repressive dictator — how can Turkey remain in Nato?

Nato states are supposed to uphold principles of human
rights and democracy, notably lacking in Turkey today.

The nuclear-armed bases come under Nato’s “nuclear
sharing policy” — in effect a violation of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Nato continues to expand. The policy of not acting “out
of area” was dropped long ago. “North Atlantic” simply
means, a domination of policies by the US.

Nato claims in its “strategic concept” that “the promotion
of Euro-Atlantic security is best assured through a wide
network of partner relationships with countries and
organisations around the globe.”

In 1994 Nato established the Partnerships for Peace
across Europe, extending as far as Uzbekistan.

Nato surrounds Russia from the west and east. These
Partnerships for Peace (note the language again) now
include 22 states, including “neutral” Ireland.

Then there is the ''Mediterranean Dialogue,'' with
''arrangements'' with countries in the Middle East.
Few people realise that Nato carries out
military exercises with Israel.

Nato has also established bilateral relations — named
individual partnerships — with Afghanistan, Australia,
Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New
Zealand and Pakistan.

In this part of the globe, where Nato carried out a military
exercise in 2014 with Japan, named Ocean Shield, they
are surrounding and menacing China, as the enemy.

Then there was the statement by Nato that “co-operation
between Nato and the United Nations continues to make
a substantial contribution to security in operations
round the world.

“The alliance aims to deepen political dialogue and
practical co-operation with the UN, as set out in
the Nato/UN declaration, signed in 2008.”

This seems like Nato bidding
to be the UN's military arm.

This hardly accords with the UN Charter. It was the
Organisation for Security & Co-operation in Europe,
set up under Chapter 8, of the UN Charter, to
prevent and resolve conflict by non-military
means and to promote co-operation in
humanitarian and other fields.

The 54 member states stretch from Iceland to Kyrgyzstan
and include Russia. Alas, how many times do you read
of their work in the press, compared with the times
you hear about Nato?

Nato is sold to us as a peace-making body. After all,
the US is home to the finest PR companies in
the world.

To summarise, Nato is pursuing yet more militarism and war:

- All Nato states are required to increase their military budgets
to 2 per cent of GDP. That means stealing more money from
social needs. Readers of the Morning Star know those all
too well: the NHS, education, adult social services; the
list is endless.

- Nato member states will have to spend 20 per cent of defence
budgets on military equipment: warships, war planes, drones,
bombs. By fuelling the arms race, Nato makes a mockery of
moves for conflict resolution.

- Nato and its member states multiply interventions outside
their territory and increase their presence through world-
wide partnerships and “coalitions of the willing.”

- Nato extends its nuclear policies as a supreme “guarantee
for the allies’ security,” notwithstanding that the majority of
countries in the world are negotiating a treaty to ban nuclear
weapons. In the meantime, nuclear weapons in Europe —
under the guise of Nato — and elsewhere, are being
modernised at a cost of many tens of billions of
dollars and pounds. Think of Trident at a cost
of £205 billion.

The Nato summit will be held and activists will
beholding a “counter-summit” with protesters
organising workshops and a demonstration.

CND activists will be there from the UK, but
-- we also need people to raise the issues
with their MPs, write letters to the press
and raise awareness on social media.

Let’s put pressure on the government to
invest in social welfare, not Nato, not war.

(Source - Morning Star)

The General Assembly reiterated that Israel's
decision from December 14th, 1981, to impose
Israeli laws, administration & custody on the
occupied Syrian Golan Heights, is null and
void -- and has no legality at all.

The latest UNGA resolution was adopted by an
overwhelming majority of UN member States.

The resolution --- reaffirmed the illegality of
acquiring territories ----- through the use of
military force. The General Assembly also
repeated that Israel's continued occupation
& enforcement of Israeli law & administration
violates international law, the UN Charter, &
the Geneva Convention's principles on the
protection of civilians during war.

During the UNGA session, a number of states
condemned the Israeli practices in occupied
Syrian Golan, calling on Israel to withdraw
from Golan, in line with June 4th, 1967.

37 states proposed the now adopted draft
resolution. However, UNGA resolutions are
non-binding and no more than a paper tiger,
unless permanent Security Council members
are willing to put their money where their
mouth was, when they adopted UNSC
Resolution 497 (1981) - decades ago.

Moreover, none of the permanent UNSC members
- China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - took
any tangible steps when the now former Israeli
Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, defiantly
declared that "Israel and the Golan are part
and parcel" and that "the international
community should get used to facing
the fact that Israel will permanently
annex the Syrian territory".

Most favourite scapegoat

The favorite scapegoat among permanent UNSC
members, with regard to supporting Israel and
neglecting Israel's illegal occupation of Golan
is the US. However, Russia is in no way more
actively pursuing Israel's adherence with
UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) -- than any
other -- of the self-anointed permanent
UNSC members. In April 2016, Russia
and Russian President Vladimir Putin,
were ominously silent about the Golan
when Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu,
visited Moscow.

Russia failed to respond to what Netanyahu had
declared "a red line" - occupation of the Golan.

A brief review of recent history pertaining to the
Israeli occupation, international affairs & Israel's
use of the Golan to wage war on Syria, suffices
to show that the UN System has failed, utterly,
and that it is perverted to the point that many
analysts call for abolishing the UN altogether.

In June 2013 an Austrian UN Disengagement &
Observer Force (UNDOF) officer told the press
that Israel is -- running a joint operations room
with the insurgents in Syria in the Golan. The
UNSC failed to respond and more importantly,
failed to take action. In July 2013, the Syrian
permanent representative to the UN in Geneva,
Dr. Fayssal al-Hamwi, noted how Israel, since
it occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967,
has displaced about half a million of the
Golan´s original inhabitants.

Also in Feb. 2014, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu
preempted a public relations quagmire by visiting
a field hospital for "Syrian Freedom Fighters" in
the Golan to show how much Israel cares and
does, on the humanitarian front. It turned out
that the "Freedom Fighters" belonged to the
Syrian Al-Qaeda franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra.

In March 2014, Israel launched one of many
military attacks against Syrian military and
security forces, from the Golan, while the
UNSC and most media were "silent".

In April 2014 The Director of Israel's Military
Intelligence, Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi,
a protegé of the now deceased Ariel Sharon,
was appointed to head the Israeli Defense
Forces Northern Command.

NSNBC international editor-in-chief, Christof
Lehmann, reported that the appointment of
Kochavi, indicated that Israel was planning
large-scale military operations in the Golan
in the near future and the widening of the
Syria war. Lehmann was right on the money.

In May 2014 Israel denied Syrians in Golan the
right to participate in Syrian elections. The UN
was "silent". In mid-April 2016, ahead of talks
with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli
PM Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed that Israel
would hold on to the Golan.

A UNDOF withdrawal has left a 12-16 km wide
corridor uncontrolled by the UNDOF... In 2013,
it transpired that Israel was giving support to
Jabhat al-Nusrah, such as a joint intelligence
and military operations room in the Israeli
occupied Golan, plus logistical support,
weapons, field hospitals, and direct
combat support.

In September 2014, Israeli machinations, resulted
in the displacement of UNDOF troops from a 12-16
kilometer-wide corridor in the disengagement zone
in the Golan by Jabhat Al-Nusra.. The corridor has
since been used to supply Al-Nusra and the other
terrorists and to launch attacks against Syria.

All permanent UNSC members with the exception of
Russia were "silent". Russian diplomats tentatively
spoke out against terminating the peace keeping
mission in the Golan. The UNSC failed to act.

In 2015 it came out that Israel planned a major
hydrocarbon extraction project in the Golan.
Partners in crime include Genier Energy.

On the board of directors? Dick Cheney,
James Woolsey, Bill Richardson, Jacob
Lord Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Larry
Summers and Michael Steinhardt,
among others.

Other players involved include the Israeli subsidiary,
Afek Oil and Gas, American Shale, French Total and
BP. Thus, there exists a broad and powerful nexus
of US, British, French and Israeli interests: at the
forefront of pushing for the break-up of Syria and
control of what's believed to be potentially vast
untapped oil and gas resources in the country.

On April 20th, 2016, NSNBC international editor-
in-chief Christof Lehmann -- said Netanyahu's
"Red Line" would be a litmus test for Russia,
as a permanent UNSC member. On April
21st, after talks between Netanyahu
and Putin in Moscow, it could be
concluded that Russia failed
-- spectacularly.

In September 2016, Israel started a wave of home
demolitions in the Golan. The UNSC was "silent".

In October 2016, Israel announced plans to
build 1,600 settlement units in the Golan,
& none of the permanent UNSC members
took any action.

So much for the latest UN
General Assembly
paper tiger.

_________________________________

The UK Labour MPs who
didn’t back the Yemen vote
have blood on their hands
by David Wearing

Presenting the motion in the Commons, Thornberry
was subjected to a series of ill-judged interruptions
by Labour MPs, such as Kevan Jones, Toby Perkins
and John Woodcock. Indeed, Thornberry received
more vocal support in the chamber from the SNP
group than from her own supposed comrades.

According to subsequent reports, some Labour
members even tried to work with their Tory
counterparts, in order to defeat their own
party’s motion.

Woodcock, a former 'Progress' Chair, claimed that
British support is “precisely focused on training
the Saudis” to improve their targeting - so as to
“create fewer civilian casualties” - parroting
the official government line. The idea that the
Saudis’ “widespread & systematic” attacks
on civilian targets are just a series of well-
meaning errors, is one that, to put it as
gently as possible, lacks credibility.

And if decades of training provided by the
British to the Saudi pilots hasn’t prevented
these supposed errors by now --- it seems
rather unlikely that it will in the near future.

In any case, this misrepresents the true nature
of the UK's role. When the intervention began,
the foreign secretary Philip Hammond, vowed
to “support the Saudis in every practical way
short of engaging in combat”, including “spare
parts, maintenance, technical advice, resupply”
and “logistical support”. The reality is that the
Saudi Air Force, roughly half UK-supplied and
half US-supplied jets, could barely function,
without this ongoing assistance from
Washington and London.

If there is Yemeni blood on the hands of the Saudi-led
coalition - then that blood is also on the hands of the
coalition’s western backers, enablers and apologists.

The Saudis and their allies can only wage this war
because the Anglo-American suppliers of their air
forces are providing active, material support. And
British and American politicians can only collude
in these outrages, because the political cost on
them, so far, has been low. However, it is in the
gift of their constituents – you, the reader –
to change that equation.

(source - The Guardian)

This could be defeated --- with
a UNITED LABOUR PARTY !!!

But unfortunately, there are "entryist" MPs who, for
decades, have been groomed by CIA cold war relic
organisations -- like the Atlantic Council -- and are
now trying to misdirect the Labour Party towards
cuts, a militarised police, and a US war agenda...
and their anti-peace MPs are hobbling Labour.

129 Labour MPs voted to stop support for
Saudi Arabia’s campaign in Yemen. The
vote was defeated by a majority of 90.

The motion called for ---- support to be withdrawn
from the Saudi government until a United Nations
investigation could determine whether the Saudi
bombing had breached international law.

The motion didn't explicitly include
a suspension of UK arms sales.

100+ Labour MPs didn't vote on the motion.
If all of them had voted to support it, the
government would have been defeated.

The following, are the Labour MPs who
abstained, or weren't present to vote.

Adrian Bailey
Andy Burnham
Angela Eagle
Angela Smith
Ann Clwyd
Ann Coffey
Anna Turley
Barry Sheerman
Ben Bradshaw
Bridgit Phillipson
Caroline Flint
Catherine McKinnell
Chris Bryant
Chris Elmore (Teller)
Chris Evans
Chris Leslie
Clive Lewis (ill)
Connor McGinn
Dan Jarvis
David Crausby
David Lammy
Diana Johnson
Fiona MacTaggart
Frank Field
Gareth Thomas
Gavin Shuker
Geoffrey Robinson
George Howarth
Gerald Kaufman
Gill Furniss
Gisela Stuart
Gloria De Piero
Graeme Jones
Graham Allen
Graham Stringer
Heidi Alexander
Helen Jones
Ian Austin
Ian Murray
Ivan Lewis
Jamie Reed
Jim Fitzpatrick
Joan Ryan
John Mann
John Spellar
John Woodcock
Judith Cummins (Teller)
Julie Elliott
Kate Hoey
Keith Vaz
Kevan Jones
Kevin Barron
Liz Kendall
Luciana Berger
Lucy Powell
Madeleine Moon
Margaret Beckett
Margaret Hodge
Maria Eagle
Mark Hendrick
Mary Creagh
Meg Hillier (Paired)
Melanie Onn
Michael Dugher
Mike Gapes
Natascha Engel
Neil Coyle
Nia Griffith
Pat McFadden
Paul Flynn
Peter Kyle
Phil Wilson
Rachel Reeves
Rob Flello
Rob Marris
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Rosie Cooper
Rushanara Ali
Ruth Smeeth
Shabana Mahmood
Siobhain McDonagh
Stephen Kinnock
Susan Jones
Toby Perkins
Tom Blenkinsopp
Tom Watson
Tracy Brabin
Tristram Hunt
Vernon Coaker
Wayne David
Wes Streeting
Yasmin Qureshi
Yvonne Fovargue

___________________________________

‘How Can I Deselect
My Labour MP?’ A Short
Guideto Reselection and
Democratic Accountability
by Eric Sim, excellent free advice here:

http://novaramedia.com/2016/07/13/how-can-i-
deselect-my-labour-mp-a-short-guide-to-
reselection-and-democratic-accountability/

___________________________________

US Impunity Erodes World Justice

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our
Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq. He also wrote the chapters on “Obama
at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report
Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a
Progressive (Lol) Leader.

In the past weeks, Burundi and S. Africa have joined
Namibia in declaring their intention to withdraw from
the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
(ICC). They are likely to be followed by a parade of
other African countries, jeopardizing the future of
an international court, which has prosecuted 39
officials from 8 African countries, but has failed
to indict a single person who is not African.

Ironically, African countries were among the first
to embrace the ICC, so it is a striking turnaround
that they are now the first to give up on it.

But it is the United States that has played the leading
role in preventing the ICC from fulfilling the universal
mandate for which it was formed, to hold officials of
all countries accountable for the worst crimes in the
world: genocide; crimes against humanity; and war
crimes - not least, international aggression, which
the judges at Nuremberg defined as “the supreme
international crime”, from which, all other war
crimes follow.

As the ICC’s founding father, former Nuremberg
prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, lamented in 2011:

“You don’t have to be a criminologist to realize
that if you want to deter a crime, you must
persuade potential criminals that, if they
commit crimes, they will be hauled into
court and be held accountable. It is the
policy of the US to do just the opposite
as far as the crime of aggression is
concerned.

"Our government has gone to great pains --- to
be sure that no US citizen will be tried by any
international criminal court, for the supreme
crime of illegal war-making.”

The US has not only refused to accept the
jurisdiction of the ICC over its own citizens.
It's gone further, pressuring other countries
to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIA),
in which they renounce the right to refer US
citizens to the ICC for war crimes committed
on their territory.

The US has also threatened to cut off US aid to
countries that refuse to sign them. The BIAs
violate those countries’ own commitments
under the ICC statute, and US pressure to
sign them, has been rightly condemned:
as an outrageous effort to ensure
impunity for US war crimes.

Resistance to US Impunity

To the credit of our international neighbours, this
US strategy has met with substantial resistance.
The European Parliament overwhelmingly passed
a resolution, stating that BIAs are incompatible
with EU membership, and urging EU- member
states and countries seeking EU membership
not to sign them.

Fifty-four countries have publicly refused to sign
BIAs, and 24 have accepted cut-offs of US aid as
a consequence of their refusal. Of 102 countries
that have signed a BIA, only 48 are members of
the ICC in any case ----- and only 15 of those
countries are on record as having ratified
the BIAs in their own parliaments.

Thirty-two other ICC members have apparently
allowed BIAs to take effect without parliament-
ary ratification, but this has been challenged by
their own country’s legal experts in many cases.

The US campaign to undermine the ICC is part
of a much broader effort by the US government
to evade all forms of accountability under the
laws that are supposed to govern international
behaviour in the modern world --- even as it
continues to masquerade as a global
champion of the rule of law.

The treaties US policy systematically violates
today, were crafted by US statespersons and
diplomats, working with foreign colleagues,
to build a world where all people will enjoy
some basic protections... from the worst
atrocities, instead of being subject only
to the law of the jungle or “might
makes right.”

So current US policy is a cynical betrayal of
the work and wisdom of past generations of
US citizens, as well as of countless victims
over the world to whom we are effectively
denying the protections of the UN Charter
& Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, and many other
multilateral treaties our country ignores,
violates or refuses to ratify.

Avoiding jurisdiction in international courts
is only one of the ways that the US evades
international accountability for its criminal
behaviour. Another involves an elaborate,
well-disguised, public relations campaign
that exploits the powerful position of US
corporations in the world of commercial
media.

Major Propaganda Funding

The US government spends a billion dollars
per year on public relations or, more bluntly,
propaganda, including $600 million from the
Pentagon budget. The work of its PR teams
and contractors is laundered by US news-
papers --- and repeated and analyzed ad
nauseam, by monolithic, flag-waving
TV networks.

These profitable corporate operations monopolize
the public airwaves in the US, and also use their
financial clout, slick marketing, and the support
of the US State Department to maintain a power-
ful presence in foreign and international media
markets.

Foreign media in allied countries provide further
legitimacy and credibility to US talking-points
and narratives as they echo around the world.
Meanwhile, Hollywood fills cinema and TV
screens across the world with an idealized,
glamorized, inspirational version of the US
that still mesmerizes many people.

This whole elaborate “information warfare”
machine presents the US as a global leader
for democracy, human rights and the rule of
law, even as it systematically and catastroph-
ically undermines those same principles. It
enables our leaders to loudly, persuasively,
demonize other countries and their leaders
as dangerous violators of international law,
even as the US and its allies commit far
worse crimes.

Double Standards

The phrase “aggressive war” is also a no-no in
the Western media - when the US government
launches wars, across international borders.
In the past 20 years, the US has violated the
UN Charter to attack at least eight countries
(Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan,
Yemen, Somalia, Libya & Syria), and the
resulting wars, have killed about
two million people.

A complex whirlwind of conflict and chaos rages
on in all the countries where the US and its allies
have lit the flames of war since 2001, but our US
leaders still debate new interventions ---- and/or
escalations as if we are the fire brigade not the
arsonists. (By contrast, the US government and
the Western media are quick to accuse Russia
or other countries of “aggression” --- even in
legally murky situations, such as after the
US-backed coup in 2014, that ousted the
elected president of Ukraine.)

Systematic violations of the Geneva Conventions
are an integral part of US war-making. Most are
shrouded in secrecy: the propaganda machine
spins the atrocities that slip through into the
public record, as a disconnected series of
aberrations, accidents and “bad apples,”
instead of as the result of illegal rules
of engagement and unlawful orders
from higher-ups.

The senior officers and civilian officials who
are criminally responsible for these crimes
in US & international law -- systematically
abuse their powerful positions to subvert
investigations, cover up their crimes, &
avoid any accountability whatsoever.

Pinter’s Complaint

When UK playwright Harold Pinter was awarded
the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he bravely
and brilliantly used his Nobel lecture to speak
about the real role the US plays in the world,
and how it whitewashes its crimes. Pinter
recounted a meeting at the US Embassy
in London in the 1980s in which a senior
embassy official, Raymond Seitz, flatly
denied US war crimes in Nicaragua ----
for which the US was in fact, convicted
of aggression by the International Court
of Justice (ICJ). Seitz went on to serve
as Assistant Secretary of State, US
Ambassador to the UK, and then
Vice-Chair of Lehman Brothers.

As Pinter explained: “this ‘policy’ was by no
means restricted to Central America. It was
conducted throughout the world. It was
never-ending. And it is --- as if it never
happened.

“The United States supported - and in many cases
engendered every rightwing military dictatorship
in the world, after the end of the Second World
War. I refer to:- Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay,
Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines,
Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile.
The horror the US inflicted upon Chile in 1973
can never be purged, & can never be forgiven.

“Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place
throughout these countries. Did... they take
place? & are they in all cases, attributable
to US foreign policy? The answer is 'yes',
they did take place, and are attributable
to American foreign policy. But you
wouldn’t know it.

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened.
Even while it was happening it wasn’t happ-
ening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.
The crimes of the United States have been
systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless,
but very few people have actually talked
about them. You have to hand it to the
US. It has exercised a quite clinical
manipulation of power, worldwide,
while masquerading... as a force
for universal good. It’s a brilliant
- even witty - highly successful,
act of hypnosis.”

If, in 2016, the world seems to be more violent
and chaotic than ever, it's not because the US
lacks the will to use force or project power, as
both major party candidates for President, &
their military advisers appear to believe, but
because our leaders have placed too much
stock in the illegal threat and use of force,
and have lost faith in the rule of law, any
international cooperation and diplomacy.

After a century of commercial dominance,
& 75 years of investing disproportionately
in weapons, military forces & geopolitical
schemes, perhaps it is understandable
that US leaders have forgotten how to
deal fairly and respectfully with our
international neighbours. But it's no
longer an option, to muddle along,
leaving a trail of death, ruin and
chaos in our wake, counting on
an elaborate propaganda mach-
ine, to minimize the blowback
on our country and our lives.

Sooner, rather than later, US citizens & our
leaders must knuckle down and master the
very different attitudes & skills that we will
need to become law-abiding global citizens
in a peaceful, sustainable, multipolar world.

_________________________________________

Russia ends treaty limiting
plutonium production in response
to recent US escalation of hostility
Fort Russ News - Topwar.ru - Lenta - News.Ru -
translated by J. Arnoldski

TopWar: On October 3rd, Russian President
Vladimir Putin signed a decree on suspending
compliance with the agreement with the US on
disposing weapons-grade plutonium. The main
reason for this decision was pointed out as the
“unfriendly attitude of the US towards Russia.”

Sources from the State Duma have reported that
Russia is ready to resume the agreement, if the
US cancels all the anti-Russian sanctions. Plus,
Russia demands that the US reduce its military
contingent in Europe, before Russia resumes
compliance with the protocols. The State
Duma’s statement reads:

“Acting according to the agreement and the
protocols of the agreement can be resumed
after the US eliminates the reasons which led
to this radical change in circumstances: after
the US reduces its military infrastructure and
the number of its troop contingents deployed
on the territory of the NATO countries having
joined NATO after September 1st, 2000, down
to the level at which they were on the day that
the agreement and its protocols entered force.

"Since then NATO has grown to encompass 9 states
of Eastern Europe. Just around the corner is NATO’s
10th state to be included since 2000 - Montenegro.”

In addition, Russia has demanded, as one of its
conditions, that Washington cancel the so-call-
ed Magnitsky Act.

We await a reaction from the US.

___________________________________________

Popov: Russia can and
should withdraw from
1997 treaty with Ukraine
By Eduard Popov for Fort Russ
- translated by J. Arnoldski -

The other day, the disturbing news came from Lvov,
the unofficial capital of Ukrainian Galicia, that the
Lvov regional council has filed a lawsuit to forcibly
evict the Pushkin Russian Cultural Centre. As the
head of the regional council, V. Girnyak, said in his
statement, organizations tied to the Anti-Terrorist
Operation are preparing to transfer the building on
Korolenko Street. The Lvov deputies hardly expect
to earn more money from these “ATOers.” Rather,
the eviction of Pushkin Russian Cultural Centre
is explained by a different motive: once again,
punishing anyone ideologically representative
of an “enemy” Russian culture.

This centre’s building was leased to the Russian
community of Lvov, in 1990. In 1999, the then
mayor Vasiliy Kuybida, set the symbolic rent
fee of 5 hryvnia (around $1 back then).

Let us quote one founding document signed by
Ukraine, the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation,
and Partnership between the Russian Federation
and Ukraine from May 31st, 1997. Point 12 of the
agreement reads: “The High Agreeing Parties shall
protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious
identities of national minorities on their territory
and create conditions for the fostering of their
identity….they will contribute to creating equal
opportunities and conditions for studying the
Russian language in Ukraine and the Ukrainian
language in the Russian Federation, training
pedagogical staff for teaching these languages
in educational establishments, and for these
purposes, provide equal state support.”

Points 1-2 of the agreement are based on the
recognition of the friendly relations between the
countries and their territorial integrity. Hence why
the agreement is often called a border treaty. For
Ukraine, whose territorial sovereignty over some
territories (including Galicia, which was part of the
Second Polish Republic until September 1939) is
quite disputed, this agreement was a real gift. It
is no coincidence that a number of patriotic
politicians in Russia, demanded that this
document not be signed.

Russia’s recognition of Kiev’s sovereignty over
territories included in the Ukrainian state is founded
on Ukraine’s observance of the rights of its Russian-
cultured citizens. After the coup d’etat in 2014,
Ukraine began pursuing a policy of cultural genocide
(ethnocide) against the Russian-cultured population.

Now Ukraine is discussing the initiative of the
scandalously infamous politician Irina Farion, to
deprive Russian residents in Ukraine of civil rights.

In fact, this measure is already being implemented.
The number of Russian schools has rapidly declined
while Russian organizations are being prosecuted
and their activities are under close surveillance
by Kiev’s intelligence services.

In accordance with the 1997 treaty, an entire
network of federal & regional organizations of
Ukrainians is funded in Russia. For example,
in the Rostov region there is a city-level and
regional national-cultural autonomy of Ukrainians.

The organization receives funding from the city
and regional budgets. Its head, the businessman
Makarchuk, is a member of the Public Chamber of
the Rostov region and is proud of his friendship
with Rostov governor Vasili Golubev. Meanwhile,
Makarchuk is published on the website of the
Ukrainian neo-Nazi Svoboda party and
frequently makes Russophobic statements.

Unfortunately, Russia is largely to blame for the fact
that the civil rights of Russian-cultured people in
Ukraine are being massively violated. An example
of this is the patronizing policy of Rostov region's
authorities. But on the federal level as well, the
state does not make sufficient (or any) efforts
to defend the Russian population of Ukraine
(nearly half of the country’s total population).

Meanwhile, a more responsible attitude towards
obligations would lead to discussion of the 1997
treaty. In a situation in which the second country
(Ukraine), massively violates the treaty’s basic
premises, then Russia has the right to withdraw
from the treaty with all the legal and political
implications. I see no reason for the Russian
budget to support the activities of Ukrainian
organizations in Russia, or recognize the
territorial sovereignty of Ukraine.

____________________________________

WHITE HELMETS -- SHAM

The Ron Paul Institute has pointed out: “We
have demonstrated that the White Helmets
are an integral part of the propaganda van-
guard, that ensures obscurantism of fact
and propagation of Human Rights fiction
that elicits the well-intentioned and self
righteous response from a very cleverly
duped public. A priority for these NGOs
is to keep pushing the No Fly Zone
scenario which has already been
seen to have disastrous implications
for innocent civilians in Libya, for
example.”

What better chance to push “the No Fly Zone
scenario” than arriving within “moments” of
the convoy tragedy, filming it and creating a
propaganda scenario before any meaningful
forensic investigation could even be started,
since the trucks were still burning. And of
course, the “White Helmets”, aka “Syrian
Defence Force”, were filming, rather than
attempting to put out the fire and rescue
those in the burning trucks.

[Ed. Yet the UK's Guardian, that snivelling wreckage
of a "Liberal" newspaper, lies, & describes them as
"the White Helmets, a volunteer rescue group,"
quotes their accusations of Syrian & Russian
"constant bombing of civilians" and calls for
a "no-fly-zone" now --- as in Libya.]

The Russian Defence Ministry subsequently
caused outrage by claiming that their Drone
footage: “shows the bombed Syrian aid
convoy included a truck full of militant
fighters carrying mortar guns.”

However: “The footage emerged as the United
Nations rowed back from describing the attack
on the aid convoy as air strikes, saying it did
not have conclusive evidence about what
had happened.”

It must be asked, why on earth, after long and
protracted negotiations over the convoy would
Syria and or their Russian ally risk the wrath of
the US & “coalition”, and of further decimation
of the country, by laying themselves open to
accusations of bombing aid convoys?

The tragedy has emphatically achieved 1 thing,
however. Wiped from the headlines, is another
atrocity - the US bombing which killed over 60
Syrian soldiers and wounded over 100 others,
just two days earlier, on Saturday 17th Sept.
- causing Russian Foreign Ministry spokes-
woman Maria Zakharova, to comment: “We
are reaching a really terrifying conclusion
for the whole world: That the White House
is defending Islamic State. Now there can
be no doubts about that”, according to
the RIA Novosti news agency.

Again - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who will guard the guards?

___________________________________

US prepares an
Islamic army in Kosovo

Pravda.Ru - The US is preparing a reserve echelon
in the territory of its Kosova enclave. But to keep
a secure strategic space, the Southern Serbian
provinces may be separated from Kosovo. Given
the total apathy of the authorities of Republika
Srpska... this plan is inching closer to its
implementation.

The goal of the Americans is clear: if Berlin's
discontent ousts US bases from Germany,
after all, the US will have a spot in Kosovo.
It's no secret that the crime and terrorist
mayhem plaguing Kosovo, is under the
patronage of the US.

Yelena Guskova, a Senator, and member of the
Academy of Sciences of the Republika Srpska
(Bosnia and Herzegovina), honoured with many
Russian and Serbian state awards, commented
to Pravda.Ru on this matter, in an interview.

Former Commander of the French foreign legion
in Kosovo -- General Jacques Ogar, has recently
confirmed to Pravda.Ru, evidence obtained from
confidential US sources -- that there are at least
five ISIS training camps in Kosovo, which are
preparing suicide bombers and an army of
Islamists to conquer Europe.

Having found no evidence that proved
Milosevic was guilty, the Hague tribunal
exonerated him. What do you think of it?

Slobodan Milosevic is a very significant historical
person in Serbia's modern history, and the whole
of Yugoslavia. In the early 1990s he was seen as
the last communist in Europe -- who should be
annihilated. His own country turned him over
to the Hague; the so-called new government
-- after the colour revolution of 2000.

However he was a leader who defended his country
and the truth. He combated a large amount of lies
at the Tribunal, which tried to prove that only the
Serbs were guilty of all the events of the 1990s,
as they were charged with collective crimes.

No leader of the Muslim territories of Yugoslavia was
convicted, only Serbian ones. The figure of Milosevic
was very important, but they didn't manage to find
any evidence.

His brother Borislav Milosevic says they secretly
took some samples of food and water Slobodan
had been given and tested it in Moscow. And it
turned out that poison had been added. And it
was difficult to breathe for him, which means
that something was infiltrated into the air.

Then he stopped eating, but the process had been
launched. His death is mysterious but the Tribunal
admitted that he was not responsible for crimes
in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Colonel Jacques Ogar, who was Commander of
a foreign legion in the territory of Yugoslavia in
the UN group admits that they were ordered to
stand for the Kosovars against the Serbians...
Western troops openly supported separatists
and participated in punitive actions against
the Serbians. Do you have such data?

Surely. I'm a Head of the Centre for the Study of the
Contemporary Balkan Crisis at the Russian Academy
of Sciences. Our main task is to collect documents
and publish them. There occur more and more
documents on the events since 1990, which
confirm it.

It's absolutely clear that international organizations
were biased. The Albanians approach their dream -
to create a big country with an Albanian population
only. The US has worked a lot to support this
movement, as Kosovo is a project of the US.

And they would have got independence long ago,
unless it was for Russia. Russia said No to their
plans in 2007. it disturbed them, and now they
do not influence Russia, but try to govern the
Serbian authorities. But I think the process
hasn't been completed, & there's a chance
to return Kosovo to Serbia.

As they say, there are 8 ISIS training camps in
the territory of Kosovo. It is reported that they
train suicide bombers to carry out acts in the
Western Europe and create a whole army to
conquer it. How can you comment on this?

When huge flows of refugees were going across
the Balkans in Europe, there were mainly young
men and almost no couples. They were well-
dressed, were going by three, and had enough
means to live in decent hotels. It is clear that
there are those among them who should stay
in the Balkans & orchestrate implementation
of their leaders' aims.

As the Serbian officials struggle to join the EU,
they implemented all the terms. And they were
told, to not only to let in these refugees, but
also to build camps for them. Many stayed
in the South, where the population is
majority Muslim . A great quantity
went to Kosovo and Metohija.

And there's an uncontrolled NATO base Bondsteel
there, where enormous resources are deployed.
This territory is not controlled by anyone. And
when questions of the US military camps in
Europe occur, no one speaks of Kosovo.

In Kosovo's camps, where terrorists are trained,
they are set absolutely free. It's very dangerous
for the whole of Europe, and the Balkans first of
all. The US, though, wants to whip Serbia into
submission and recognize the independence
of Kosovo and Metohija.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika
Srpska, and Serbians who reside there, are
hampering these plans.

There is evidence that, as early as in the mid-
1990s the US aimed to go down to the Balkans
when the agreement with Germany terminated
if they had to leave. They need a territory in
Bosnia & Herzegovina, in Kosovo, Metohija,
Montenegro, Serbia & Macedonia. Republika
Srpska hampers implementation of this plan
today.

They need to annihilate the Republic and make
the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina a unitary
state. They didn't manage to conduct a colour
revolution in the Republika Srpska, while the
terror acts, which may be backed by Muslims
in other territories, may be fruitful.

These plans may come forward in the nearest
future, and it's a threat for the whole of Serbia.
As there is a plan to separate the Southern
regions of Serbia, where a lot of Albanians
and Muslims reside. Today Serbian officials
regard these refugees calmly, as well as
capable of possible terrorist acts. But it
should be paid 'special attention'.

Interview by Alexandre Artamonov

_____________________________________

Shocking: South Korean
Death Camps Uncovered

If you want to read the original AP report:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c22de3a565fe4e
85a0508bbbd72c3c1b/ap-s-korea-covered
-mass-abuse-killings-vagrants

If you want to read the Truth...

there's a big difference between the news,
and the truth - if you want the latest news
and the truth, say, on Brazil - then please
go to our One Union page.

________________________________

US/UK elite
bankrolled A. Hitler

Germans were paid in company shares for loans
that managed Germany's war reparations -- thus
US capital began to actively integrate into the
German economy.

The total amount of foreign investment in German
industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63
billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by
loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion
Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers
from the US, and most banks were from JP Morgan.

As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second
place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of
the USA's leading financial-industrial groups.

"Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie", main
supplier of the German war machine, financed 45%
of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was
under the control of Rockefeller's "Standard oil".

Morgan, through "General Electric", controlled the
German radio and electrical industry, via AEG and
Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG
were owned by "General Electric") and through
the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the 'phone
network in Germany.

In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the air-
craft manufacturing company "Focke-Wulf".

"General Motors", belonging to the DuPont
family, established control over "Opel".

Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of
Volkswagen. In 1926, with the participation
of the Rockefeller Bank, Dillon, Reed & Co,
the second largest industrial monopoly in
Germany, after I.G Farben, merged with
metals group, "Vereinigte Stahlwerke"
(Steel trust) plus Thyssen, Flick,
Wolff, Feglera etc.

US co-operation with Germany's military-
industrial complex, was so intense and
pervasive, that by 1933, the key sectors
of German industry, & large banks such
as the Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank,
Donat Bank, etc, were all under the
control of US financial capital.

The political force that was intended to
play a crucial role in the Anglo-American
plans was being simultaneously prepared.

We are talking about the funding of
the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.

As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in
his memoirs, from 1923, Hitler received large
sums from abroad. Where they went, is not
known, but they were received through
Swiss and Swedish banks.

It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a
meeting took place between A. Hitler and
the military attache of the US to Germany
-- Captain Truman Smith -- who compiled
a detailed report for his Washington
superiors (in the office of military
intelligence), in which he spoke
highly of Hitler.

Through Smith's circle of acquaintances, A.
Hitler was introduced to Ernst Franz Sedgwick
Hanfstaengl, (Putzie), --- a graduate of Harvard
University who played an important role in the
formation of A. Hitler as a politician, rendered
him significant financial support, and secured
for him, acquaintance & communication with,
senior British figures.

Hitler was prepared politically, but, as Germany
reigned in prosperity, his party remained on the
periphery of public life... The situation changed
dramatically with the beginning of 'the crisis'.

In the autumn of 1929, the collapse of the US
stock exchange was triggered by the Federal
Reserve, and the next stage of the Anglo-US
financial circles' strategy, had started.

The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan, decided to
stop lending to Germany --- inspired by the bank
crisis & economic depression in Central Europe.

In September 1931, England abandoned the gold
standard, deliberately destroying international
payments systems and completely cutting off
"financial oxygen" to the Weimar Republic.

But a financial miracle occurred for the Nazi
party: in September 1930 as a result of large
donations by Thyssen and I.G. Farben --- the
party got 6.4 million votes & took 2nd place
in the Reichstag;- after this, more generous
investments from abroad were activated.

The main link between the major German
industrialists and foreign financiers,
became H. Schacht.

On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held
with the largest English financier, a Mr M.
Norman, A. Hitler, and von Papen, which
concluded a secret agreement on the
financing of the NSDAP.

This meeting was also attended by US
policy-makers, the Dulles brothers ---
something their biographers do not
like to mention.

On January 14th, 1933, a meeting between
Hitler, Schroder, Papen & Kepler took place,
where Hitler's program was fully approved. It
was here that they finally resolved the issue
of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on
30th January, A. Hitler became Chancellor.

The implementation of the next
stage of the strategy thus began.

The attitude of Anglo-American ruling circles
to the new government was very sympathetic.
When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which
naturally called into question the payment of
war debts, neither the UK or France pressed
their payment claims.

Moreover, after a visit to the US in May 1933,
H. Schacht was placed, again, at the head of
the Reichsbank, and, after his meeting with
the President and the biggest bankers on
Wall Street, the US allocated Germany
new loans --- totalling $1 billion.

In June, during a trip to London & a meeting
with M. Norman, Schacht sought an English
loan of $2 billion and a reduction and then
the cessation of payments, on old loans.

Thus, the Nazis got what they could not
achieve with the previous government.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-
German transfer agreement, which became one
of the foundations of British policy towards the
Third Reich, &, at the end of the 30's, Germany
became the main trading partner of England.

Schroeder Bank became Germany's main agent
in the UK & in 1936 his New York office teamed
up with the Rockefellers, to create Schroeder,
Rockefeller & Co. investment Bank, which the
Times magazine called the Berlin-Rome
"economic propagandist axis".

As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his 4-
year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans,
so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, US Standard oil acquired
730,000 acres of land in Germany... then
built large oil refineries which supplied
the Nazis with oil.

At the same time, Germany secretly took
delivery of the most modern equipment
for aircraft factories, from the US, which
would begin producing German planes.

Germany gained large numbers of military
patents from US firms Pratt and Whitney,
Douglas, and Curtis Wright --- and it was
US technology, building the Junkers-87.

In 1941 --- as world war ll was raging ---
US investments in Germany's economy
amounted to $475 million. Standard oil
invested - 120 million, General motors -
$35 million, ITT - $30 million, and Ford
- $17.5 million.

The close financial & economic co-operation
of Anglo-American and Nazi business circles,
was the backdrop against which, in the 30's,
a policy of appeasement led to world war II.

Today, as the world's financial elite begins
to implement the 'Great depression 2' plan
with its subsequent transition to the "new
world order", identifying its key role in the
organization of crimes against humanity,
becomes a priority.

Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical
sciences, academician of the Academy
of military sciences, & a member of the
International Association of historians
of world war II.