Rhondda Records logo 1
 
Rhondda Records Home Page
 
 
Rhondda Records Cartoon Page
A page to help the Rhondda laugh
 
 
Quotations Page
Words said in truth or jest
 
 
Penrhys, Rhondda Page
A page telling the story of a unique magical village - Penrhys, in the Rhondda !
 
 
Richard Gould's Page
Move over Titch Gwilym and Micky Gee, Richard Gould IS the new Welsh virtuoso
 
 
Efran Kaye's Page
The master of music, Efran Kaye is here!
 
 
Peace Page
A Page from the Rhondda dedicated to Peace
 
 
Peace Events and leftwing events Page
Some activities you just might like to aid Peace
 
 
Rhondda History Page
A page to help those who want to know the Rhonddas past
 
 
Your Health Page
A page to help your health - be positive !
 
 
Jobs in the Arts Page
News of opportunities in drama, music, dance in Wales
 
 
One Union
A Page to help unity among working people
 
 
Glynbyerful Male (voice) Choir's Very Own Page
a choir from all the Glyns of the Rhondda for nutters
 
 
Rhondda Records' Top Ten Books Page
Great Thinkers point the way forward
 
 
FOLK REVOLUTION
A Page for those who DO care about true folk
 
 
Poetry and Literature in Wales Page
Poetry and Literature in Wales
 
 
Welsh Recipes Page
Food to honour from Wales' tradition for now
 
 
Siarad Gwmraeg?
Welsh language News
 
 
Discussion Page
Let's open up and share (communicate)
 
 
Rhondda Records' Shop
Stuff yew cun buy, frwm the Rhondda, innit
 
 
Poet's Page
music and opinion from Wales' wandering poet.
 
 
Business Support in the Rhondda and Wales
answers for start ups and established firms in a changing world
 
 

Peace Page

Please watch the video above...
We have never existed in such peril,
and yet almost no-one is able to act.


VIDEO shows deaf child
 react to Syrian first lady
giving a life-changing
 hearing aid to him...
January 22nd,, 2019, at 6:21pm

A deaf child being treated at a Damascus hospital
was filmed reacting to an implant allowing him
to hear for the first time. The child got the
device from his donor, Syrian first lady
Asma Assad, who’s been fighting
breast cancer.

Asma, who is the wife of Syrian President Bashar
Assad, was filmed paying a charity visit to the
Damascus hospital, on Monday, where she
met families whose children suffer from
hearing impairments.

The video, uploaded by the Syrian presidency’s official
Twitter account, shows Asma equipping a young boy
with a hearing implant.

The child, who was born deaf, begins to laugh and
offers thumbs up, as he hears human voices
clearly, for the first time in his life,
while Asma talks to him gently.

In all, ten children received the device,
with the first lady’s support.

The footage has been widely shared on social networks,
with many praising the first lady, for her charity work.

A post on Asma’s Instagram page has highlighted
the rehab program for children who suffer from
life-long hearing impairments.

The Syrian first lady herself has recently been in need
of medical help, after she was diagnosed with breast
cancer, in August 2018. This did not stop her from
continuing her charity and humanitarian projects
- helping Syria's  people overcome the aftermath
of the war that has been devastating the
country, since 2011.

Despite the cancer treatments, Syria's First Lady,
Asma Al Assad, has never stopped  her
community work in Syria.

The video shows the child Hussein Nasser's
adorable reaction, when he was finally
able to hear, after he was given
his first hearing aid.

Asma Assad was born to Syrian parents
in London, educated in the UK, and
moved to Syria in November 2000
- shortly after meeting Bashar
Assad, whom she married 
a month later.

 The couple have three children. Asma is known to
 have refused multiple offers of asylum, choosing
 to stay in war-torn Syria.

(Source - RT)

_________________________________________________


An "accident" or what? 
You decide!


Pro-Russia President of Moldova's 
"accident" caught on cam...




Nuclear words:
Putin's FINAL warning:

(People DO need reminding -- unless
US, UK and French policy changes,
and stops being so 'exceptional'
-- that is, outside the UN legal
Charter and thus, criminal
--- there will be a reaping.)


syrian christian leaders condemn UK US France's criminal bombing


 

US, Europe & NATO risk
 all-out war: by backing
unhinged Kiev regime
by Finian Cunningham
November 27th, at 4:25pm

With the US, EU and NATO all bolstering claims of “Russian
 aggression” – in the face of contrary evidence – the real
danger, is that the Kiev regime will be emboldened
to carry out more reckless provocations,
leading to all-out war.

It seems indisputable that the three Ukrainian Navy vessels
were dispatched last Sunday in order to instigate a security
response from Russian maritime border forces. In contrast
to normal procedures for passage clearance through the
 Kerch Strait, the Ukrainian warships refused to
communicate with Russian controls, and
acted menacingly inside Russia’s
Black Sea territorial limits.

At a United Nations Security Council emergency meeting
 on Monday, the US, Britain and France pointedly refused
 to take on board Russia’s legal argument for why it felt
 obliged to detain the Ukrainian boats and 24 crew. The
Western powers automatically sided with the version
of events claimed by President Petro Poroshenko –
that the Ukrainian Navy was attacked unlawfully
 by Russia.

The US, EU and NATO denounced Russia’s “aggression”
and demanded that the Ukrainian vessels and crew be
repatriated immediately, even though under Russian
law, there is a case for prosecution.

It is the West’s refusal to acknowledge facts, that is part
of the problem. Russia is continually accused of
“annexing” Crimea, in 2014, instead of the
Western powers recognizing that the
Black Sea peninsula has voted, in a
 constitutionally held referendum,
 to secede from Ukraine and join
the Russian Federation.

 Crimea was prompted to take that historic step, because
 the US, EU & NATO had, only the month before, backed
 an illegal coup in Kiev, against the elected Ukrainian
government. That coup brought to power the present
 Kiev regime, led by Poroshenko, and a parliament
dominated by neo-Nazi parties.

So, the problem here, is a refusal by Western supporters
of the dubious Kiev regime, to accept the legal, historic
reality, that Crimea is part of Russia’s territory. Ships
 passing through the Kerch Strait between Russia’s
 mainland and Crimea are obliged to notify Russian
maritime controls of passage. Russia has since
reopened the strait to civilian cargo transport
following the naval skirmish at the weekend.

When the Ukrainian Navy vessels violated legal procedures
 and entered Russian territorial limits, their action was
aggressive, not Russia’s response.

Furthermore, there are already emerging signs that the
Ukrainian naval transport was orchestrated for the
purpose of inciting an incident.

Some of the detained crew members have admitted
 carrying out orders, which, they knew, would be
 seen by Russia, as provocative.

It has also been reported by the US government-owned
 Radio Free Europe that the Ukrainian secret services
(SBU) have confirmed that its officers were among
the crew on the boats. The vessels were also
armed. If the transfer was an innocent
passage, why were secret services
 involved?

Recall that Ukrainian secret services have previously
 been caught staging sabotage operations in Crimea.

Another major background factor is the increasing NATO
military buildup in eastern Ukraine, and in the Black Sea.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin officially opened
 the 19km bridge linking Russia’s mainland with Crimea
 in May, earlier this year, there were calls in US and
Ukrainian media for the structure to be sabotaged.

 Moscow has, understandably, stepped up security
controls around the vital infrastructure, which
cost $3.7 billion and is the longest bridge
 in Europe.

In recent months, the US and Britain have ordered
increasing military deployment to the region
under the guise of “training” and
“assistance” to the Kiev
regime forces.

Earlier this year, in July, the NATO alliance held naval
drills, Sea Breeze, along with Ukrainian forces in the
Black Sea. That’s in spite of the fact that Ukraine is
 not a member of NATO, although it is aspiring to
join the 29-member US-led bloc, at some time
in the future.

It was the following month, in August, that Russia began
 stepping up its controls and searches of vessels
through the Kerch Strait linking the Black Sea
to the Sea of Azov. The latter leads to ports
under the control of the Kiev regime such
as Mariupol --- which is adjacent to the
breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic.

 The DPR and Luhansk People’s Republic broke away
following the coup in Kiev in 2014 and have been
under military attack for the past four years,
despite the so-called Minsk peace treaties.

These are more facts that the Western
backers of the Kiev regime, refuse
 to deal with.

More NATO buildups continued in September with the
supply of two gunboats, by the US, to the Ukrainian
Navy for deployment in the Sea of Azov.

Pentagon-linked publication Defense One, described
that supply as part of efforts by Washington and
Kiev, to develop a “mosquito navy”, in order to
skirmish with Russian forces.

Only four days before the latest naval clash, Britain’s
Defense Minister Gavin Williamson announced the
Royal Navy was to send HMS ‘Echo’ to patrol with
 Ukrainian special forces to “defend freedom and
democracy.” Williamson said: “As long as
Ukraine faces Russian hostilities, the
United Kingdom will be a
steadfast partner.”

This is the background to the simmering tensions
in the Black Sea, between Ukraine and Russia.
The situation has arisen because of Western
 interference in Ukraine – primarily the
 coup in Kiev in February 2014. Yet, in
 all discussions about events since
then, the Western powers are in
denial of facts & their culpability.

The recent militarization of the Black Sea by the NATO
alliance, is a stark provocation to Russia’s national
security, but again, the Western powers bury their
collective heads in the sand.

Given the reckless indulgence by the US, Europe and
NATO of the Kiev regime amid its ongoing violations
against the populace in eastern Ukraine, its refusal
to abide by the Minsk agreements, and its continual
inflammatory and unhinged rhetoric against Russia,
it should not be surprising if this same regime feels
emboldened, to provoke an armed confrontation
with Moscow.

Arguably, the Kiev regime and its adulation of World War
II Nazi collaborators, never had any legitimacy in the first
place. It continues to demonstrate its lack of legitimacy:
from the immense social problems in Ukraine of
poverty, corruption, human rights violations,
neo-Nazi paramilitaries running amok...
and now, martial law being imposed.

It remains to be seen if the recent naval provocation was
 carried out with the tacit approval of Washington and
other NATO powers, as a pretext for a further
militarization against Russia. The initial
misplaced condemnations of Russia
have subsided, to more measured
calls from US President Donald
Trump and French Foreign
Minister Jean-Yves Le
 Drian, for “restraint”
 and “dialogue.”

That might suggest Kiev’s failing President Poroshenko
 and his security services, acted alone, to order the
naval confrontation, as a desperate throw of the
dice, to escalate NATO and EU support for
his shaky regime, against Russia.

Trump’s comments hoping that Kiev and Russia would
“straighten things out” sound like Washington is not
behind the provocation and has no desire for a
wider conflict. Just as well, because such a
development is a gateway to all-out war.

Nevertheless, such a catastrophe is always a serious risk
 when Western powers indulge this unhinged Kiev regime.

(Source - RT)

_________________________________________________


War in Donbass is looming:
Western PMCs come to
 Ukraine to kill Ivans
by Dmitry Sudakov
September 4th, at 6:07pm

The press service of the People's Republic of Donetsk
has reported a sharp increase in the number of foreign
military instructors coming to Ukraine. A rise in the
number of foreign military experts, may come
as
a ''preparation'' - towards another offensive of
Ukrainian troops on the Donbass, officials
at
the Donetsk administration believe.

"We do not exclude that the servicemen of foreign armed
 forces arriving, will take part in planning and conducting
 an offensive operation," the head of the press service
of the People's Republic of Donetsk, Daniil Bezsonov
said, adding that this is about military instructors
 from the US and Canada.

In general, the topic of the presence of military experts in
 Ukraine, is not new at all. This is a whole industry, where
Western businesses and politics are intertwined, in the
most bizarre way. A few years ago, for example, the US
congress adopted a package of special amendments, 
prohibiting Pentagon experts from training neo-Nazi
paramilitary units. However, as it turns out, nothing
 stops Western instructors from training members
of, for example, such an infamous "special unit"
as the Azov Battalion.

It is worth saying that Andrei Biletsky, the head of this
 military group, has repeatedly stated that the purpose
of the unit was "to lead a crusade of the white race
against Semitic sub-humans."

Today, however, the military instructors, who train
Ukrainian militants, represent private military
companies from the West. The European
Security Academy (ESA) works with
the Azov
Battalion, closely.

Azov representatives
even wrote
a letter of gratitude to the
ESA,
which reads:

"The soldiers and the command of the Azov special
purpose regiment, express their gratitude to
instructors from the European Security
Academy - Ukraine, for their help in
defending the Ukrainian state."

ESA instructors have been "working" with Azov since 2015,
if not earlier. Members of the battalion wrote on their web
site, that they undergo training to wage war against a
strong and experienced adversary:

"ESA instructors developed a training program specifically
for the war we came across. Since our enemy has a lot of
experience and strength, we have to adapt to its tactics
and become even more effective. The nature of enemy's
actions is different on different sectors of the front,
that's
why our divisions need to be prepared for
any
development," a message posted on the
website of the organisation said. 

In general, the war that Ukraine is waging today, is not a war
against either Donetsk or Luhansk - this is a war against
Russia. The two breakaway republics do not make a
strong enemy.

Interestingly, reports about Azov's connection with Western
PMCs originally came from Bellingcat bloggers. This is also
 a very special organisation, that usually collects photos
from open sources and then uses them to make
unimaginable discoveries.

In general, Bellingcat shares an extremely negative attitude
 to Russia. They have been working with US government
 structures on issues of the Ukrainian crisis for several
 years. The results of this work have been doubtful to
all, except for those US government structures.

All in all, the training of Ukrainian militants by American and
European instructors has not been a secret for long, already.

In early March of this year, it was said that thousands of
Ukrainian soldiers were trained, under the guidance of
military instructors from the United States, Lithuania,
Britain and Canada, at a secret training ground near
 Lvov. The range ground has been in use, since
2015,
for as many as 6,000 Ukrainian
military men.

The range ground is also a base for a contingent of
200 US, and 250 Canadian, military instructors.

On July 25th of this year, the US Navy started building
an educational naval base in Ochakov, 130 kilometres
from the Crimea. Naturally, it was reported that the
base would be given away to the Ukrainian Navy
of Ukraine. Yet, Ukraine does not have a navy
that would require another base.

As we can see, the countries that declare themselves to
be strongholds of democracy and human values, are
waging a proxy war against Russia. Hotheads at
Azov and other groups, dream about scorching
the Donbass, before taking up Russia. No one
cares about the civilians who get killed in
Donetsk and Luhansk, on a regular
basis. Western human values,
disregard human lives.

(Source - Pravda Ru)



______________________________________________


US and Israeli officials
 travelled to Ukraine -
to study S-300 air
defence systems
October 11th, at 1:28pm

Ukraine has S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. A delegation
of US and Israeli officials has recently visited Ukraine, to
study S-300 complexes, Soha News, a Vietnamese
 publication reports.

Syria to defend itself with Russia's S-300

The delegation of US and Israeli officials paid a visit to Ukraine
 after Russia delivered S-300 missile systems to Syria, after
the tragic shoot down of the Ilyushin Il-20 spy plane.

Kiev convinced representatives of the delegation that
 Ukrainian S-300 systems were no different from
Russian ones, the publication said.

According to Soha News, the trip to Ukraine was successful,
because US & Israeli officials found out that F-35 Lightning
II fighters, if necessary, will be able to cope with Russian
 or Syrian S-300 systems, deployed on the territory
of Syria.

(Source - Pravda Ru)


______________________________________________



 ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE:

Russian Air-force Support for
Syrian troops - if Western
 coalition attacks
by Paul Antonopoulos
September 12th, 2018.

The Russian Aerospace Force will support Syrian troops
if the Western coalition decides to launch attacks
against Syria due to the provocation of the
“chemical attacks” in Idlib province,
according to Russian Senate
International Committee
member, Oleg Morozov.

Earlier, the Russian Centre for Reconciliation in Syria said
filming of a provocation was being prepared, alleging the
 use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army, in Idlib
province. Morozov said:

“Even if [Western countries] start attacking Syria, in a
chemical attack, they will believe only those who are
staging it. But that does not mean that the coalition
doesn't attack. Syrians will fight the militants above
all else, but I do not rule out our Aerospace Force
providing support, but only if it is the Western
coalition who starts the attack.”

As the clashes around the jihadist-occupied province
of Idlib in northern Syria are drawing closer, the US
has made numerous predictions, that Syrian
President Bashar Assad is planning to use
chemical weapons in combat, although
they do not provide any evidence and
motives, for such an event.

In other words, the US is preparing for an intensification
of its involvement in Syria, not a decrease, as Daesh
(ISIS) and other Syrian jihadists, are approaching
defeat.

(Fort Russ)


_______________________________________________________




Scenario of southern Syria
...could be
repeated, in
last major battle in Idlib

by Hummam Sheikh Ali
September 6th, at 3:01pm

Xinhua - The scenario that has taken place in southern Syria
and led to the retaking of vast areas there by the Syria army,
 could be repeated, in the northwestern province of Idlib,
analysts said.

Idlib is the last major rebels stronghold in Syria, where an
imminent battle is grabbing the attention of superpowers.

In southern Syria, the army fully secured Daraa, the birthplace
 of the over seven-year war in Syria, and other areas in south-
ern Syria, in August, and is currently dealing with a pocket
held by the IS, in the remote eastern countryside of
Sweida province.

But the war there is considered done, as vast swathes
of
southern Syria has returned under the control of
the
Syrian army, save for al-Tanf area, where the
United
States has a military base, under the
same name,
in southeastern Syria.

In the battle in Daraa and other areas in the south, some
of the rebels accepted the reconciliation, while the al-
Qaida-linked Nusra Front, or Levent Liberation
Committee (LLC), was reluctant, and refused
 to deal with the government.

However, the rebel groups fell like domino pieces in front
of the army's offensive, and some factions of the LLC
 accepted to surrender their heavy weapons, and
evacuated toward Idlib province.

The battle in the south was quicker than anyone had
expected, as the area there, mainly in Daraa, was
home to various rebel groups, including the IS,
whose militants are now besieged in Tilal
al-Safa, in Sweida's countryside.

After the victory there, the army has shifted its focus
to Idlib, which is the last major stronghold of the
rebels in Syria, and the battle there is expected
to be the last major one, in Syria's long-
standing war.

Now that military operation in Idlib seems looming,
similarities have been drawn between Idlib
 and Daraa.

Similiar to the situation in Daraa, the army has started
 amassing forces near Idlib's frontline, the few rebel-
held pockets in the mountains of Latakia province
in northwestern Syria, and the northern country-
side of Hama province, in central Syria.

Ali Maqsoud, a retired military officer, told Xinhua that
the scenario of the south will likely be repeated in Idlib.

 The LLC used to be the striking force in Daraa, before
its defeat, and the group has become the striking
 force in Idlib.

Both Daraa and Idlib were included in the de-escalation
 zone deal agreed upon by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, as
part of the Astana talks on Syria.

But the presence of the terror-designated groups
in Daraa, has undermined the six-month deal.

The LLC presence in Idlib and the expiry of the six-month
period of the deal made it crucial for the army to restore
 the last rebel bastion, but more favorably, under
international cover, as Turkey has 12
observation points in Idlib, as part
of the de-escalation zones' deal.

Maqsoud, however, noted that the matter in Idlib is a bit
 more complicated, as it would be the last major battle
 in Syria's long-standing war and the foreign powers
involvement is larger and deeper, than that
of Daraa.

Additionally, the foreign rebels in Idlib are more, than in
any other areas, especially as Idlib has turned into the
destination for the rebels that left other parts of
 the country.

As part of the efforts to establish an international
consensus about the upcoming operation, Iran
will host a summit on Friday, that will group
the presidents of Iran, Russia, and Turkey, 
to discuss the situation in Idlib.

Turkey has a considerable sway over the rebels, and its
 alliance with the other two powers, is crucial, at this
stage, amid a rift between Ankara and Washington.

These efforts to end the situation in Idlib is also supported
 by Damascus, whose officials said that achieving
 reconciliation in Idlib is a priority, but the war
against the reluctant extremists seems
inevitable, after Turkey failed to
persuade the LLC to dissolve.

Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said on Friday
that the country is now in the "final quarter of an hour"
of the Syrian war.

Maher Ihsan, another political analyst, said a limited
 military campaign could be launched against the
extremists' groups, while, at the same time, 
reconciliation deals could be struck with
other factions, desirous of achieving
reconciliation with the government, 
akin to what happened in Daraa.

He said that the amassing of forces and the tremendous
political effort exerted by Iran and Russia, to make this
 operation happen, in order to bring an end to the
battles in Syria, mean that there is no turning
back from the campaign in Idlib.

It's worth noting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
 Lavrov, met earlier this week, with his Saudi counter-
part, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir and a couple of days
 later, with Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.

In the same timeframe, Iran's Foreign Minister, 
Mohammad Javad Zarif, held meetings in
Turkey, with the Turkish President,
 Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Sure that is not an easy task, but some positive
signs have appeared, after all these meetings.

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, Jubeir, said at a press
conference, following his meeting with Lavrov, that
his country stresses the unity of Syria, and its
territorial integrity, shying away from
previous remarks, about the need
for Assad to leave Syria.

His remarks were seen by al-Moallem, Syria's FM, as a
"new change" in the Saudi stance from Syria, taking
into consideration that Saudi Arabia is among the
biggest supporters to the opposition in Syria and
has bankrolled major rebel groups in the country,
mainly the Islam Army that was pushed out of
its
stronghold near Damascus, to Idlib, and
other
areas, near the Turkish border.

For Turkey, Ankara has been apparently opposing
a wide-
scale operation in Idlib, with Turkey fearing
for its
interests there and a possible influx of
refugees,
as nearly 3 million civilians live in
Idlib, in
addition to over 20,000 militants.

As for the US, the administration there, started its
reaction to the preparations for the Idlib battle

through warnings by officials and President
Donald Trump, as well.

Moreover, the United States, Britain, and France
issued
a new warning to Assad, against using
chemical
weapons in the battle there.

But later remarks indicate that the U.S.
administration
could support a limited
operation in Idlib.

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said
the United States shares Moscow's concerns over the
 presence of terrorists in Idlib, noting that his country
 is ready to work on solving this issue.

For his part, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff
 Joseph Dunford said on Tuesday during a trip to Athens
that the possible assault in Idlib, could lead to a
"humanitarian catastrophe."

He noted that a precise and tailored counterterrorism
campaign -- not a full-scale military offensive -- was
the appropriate way to tackle extremist elements
in northwest Syria.

________________________________


BREAKING: Russia's State TV
Advising Russian Citizens on

how to survive a World War !






WAKE UP AND STOP
THIS WAR ON RUSSIA !

The Doomsday clock of the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

website now has the final singular
moment that will bring
civilization
to final nuclear annihilation, at
2 minutes to midnight.

The closest it has been, up to this time, was in 1953,
when the US successfully tested the hydrogen bomb.


President Assad drives
 to E. Goutha - in a Honda!



 Syrians support Assad, but BBC
 won't report it, British baroness
 tells RT after fact-finding trip
April 24th, at 4:36pm

Most Syrians support their president and military, but
the BBC presents Britons with a different, one-sided
story, a British baroness and member of the House
 of Lords told RT, after returning from a trip to the
 war-torn country.

Caroline Cox, a baroness and Life Peer in the House
 of Lords, recently returned from a tour of several
Syrian cities, during which she spoke with a
"wide range of people," including government
officials, opposition leaders, artists,
writers,
intellectuals and ordinary Syrians walking
in the park.

According to Baroness Cox, despite claims from
western governments and media outlets, the
vast majority of Syrians are thankful to
President Bashar Assad and the
Syrian and Russian militaries
for fighting Islamic State (IS,
 formerly ISIL) and jihadist
groups.

The Syrian people "are very grateful to the Syrian Army,
to Assad and, I may say, for Russian help in getting
rid of the terrorists. They are the perpetrators of
the most appalling atrocities and killings."

However, British media like the BBC have done a poor job
 of accurately conveying this public attitude, Baroness
 Cox told RT.

"People are very keen to hear the point of view from people
 inside Syria. It's widely felt and widely reported, that BBC
reporting is very biased and very one-sided, and so they
really want a bigger picture."

She also dismissed accusations that her trip to Syria was
 in any way inappropriate or was somehow staged for
propaganda purposes.

The baroness explained how she spoke freely with random
 people she met in the park, "something that couldn't have
 been 'arranged' by the government."

"I talked to two delightful Muslim ladies, in one of the parks
 in Aleppo, and that wasn't pre-arranged, and I asked them
 what they felt about the situation, and what they said
was entirely consistent with what we'd hear in the
formal meetings," she said.

According to Cox, her message to the British people – and
to the entire world – is very simple: "Please, may we leave
 the Syrian people the freedom to decide their own future."

(Source - RT)


__________________________________________________



 Why Can’t US Wage War on Syria?
by Mohammad Salami
April 12th, 2018, at 3:50pm

Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria in 2011, the United
 States of America has been supporting the terrorist groups
 to fight the Syrian army, government and people, in order
to
destroy the entire country and impose partition
across its
territories.

Syria, which functions as the centre of the axis of resistance
 in the region, has been facing heavy international pressures
 to change its strategic political position in the area. After
facing heavy political & diplomatic pressures, Syria had
 to confront a ferocious takfiri war & intermittent Israeli
air raids on various targets in the country. Finally, the
manager and the leader of the international wars on
Syria and the whole axis of resistance, the U.S.,
decided to directly interfere in the ongoing
 battle in Syria.

Playing the same ‘chemical game’ which covered up the US
war on Iraq in 2003, President Donald Trump decided, on
 behalf of the whole world, to strike Syria due to what he
claimed were “chemical attacks” launched by the
Syrian
government troops in Eastern Gouta.

Regardless of the unfounded chemical allegations, the US
 administration faces a number of obstacles, which block
its military aspirations in Syria & the entire Middle East.

First, the US military bases in the Middle East will be
under direct intensive attacks from the opposing
forces. Second, the allied Arab regimes would
face unstable conditions in case a largescale
 war erupted in the region. Third, the Zionist
 entity would pay the heaviest price for any
American adventure against Syria and
the
axis of resistance.

Considering the key obstacles mentioned above, as well as
 many others, the US administration finds itself unable to
 deal any blow to Syria in the context of a major war, as
the consequences would be destructive with respect
to the US strategic interests in the Middle East.

In case the United States is mulling limited air raids on
certain targets in Syria, such actions have not proved
 to be fruitful and game changing. In April, 2017, the
US warplanes struck Shoairat military airport in
Homs in Syria, yet the blow failed to achieve
any political or field result.

In politics, surprises are always expected; however, the
available political and military conditions do not allow
the United States to take any reckless measure
against Syria and the whole region.

(Source: Al-Manar Website)



__________________________________________________________



Virginia Senator Black: US’s
Syria Campaign is a Disgrace
By Joaquin Flores
March 27th, 2018

FRN is honored to present this exclusive guest editorial
from the esteemed former JAG officer at the Pentagon,
and current sitting 13th District representative of the
Virginia state senate, Mr. Richard Black.

Guest Editorial by Richard Black

Several weeks ago, NATO powers warned that Syria was
going to use poison gas against East Ghouta—site of a
massive, ongoing battle between Western-backed
terrorists and the Syrian Army. [1]

The West knew full-well that terrorists in East Ghouta had
all the necessary chemicals in place to stage a false-flag
attack that the West could blame on the Syrian Army.

 This ploy has been used repeatedly by the CIA, the UK's
 MI-6, and the Turkish MIT, throughout the Syrian War. 

Unfortunately for them, the Syrian Army advanced
 so fast that they overran the Sarin gas laboratory
and captured it before the terrorists could
execute their assigned plans. [2]

Consequently, no Sarin gas attack has yet occurred
in
East Ghouta.  However, you can be certain that
the Western intelligence services are working
 feverishly to resupply the terrorists with
 new chemicals to formulate poison gas
that can be used to impugn the Syrian
government.  That is a major reason
 for the Syrian Army’s haste in over-
running the final 20% of E. Ghouta
remaining in terrorist hands.

Every time al Qaeda and its ilk have their backs to the wall,
the U.S. led coalition ensures that the terrorists fire a few
poison gas shells & kill some civilians.  Not one journalist
 has ever asked the obvious question:  “If Syria is
compelled
to employ poison gas, why not fire at
the enemy, instead of
civilians pushing baby
strollers?”  They won’t ask the
question,
because it cannot be answered.  And the

Mainstream Media know there are some
questions
that you must never ask –
if you know what’s good
for you.

Despite the government’s solemn pledge, the U.S. has not
only put “boots on the ground,” it has unlawfully occupied
two major regions of Syria.  American troops have been
ordered to steal Syria’s national oil wealth and seize
 the precious waters of the Euphrates River.  We
have established many bases on sovereign
Syrian land, and bombed Syrian soldiers
who attempted to enter American-
occupied Syria. [3]

Our occupation of Syria is immoral
 and a disgrace to our nation.

Senator Richard H. Black
13th District, Virginia

Senator Black is a retired colonel who was wounded
during fierce fighting as a U.S. Marine Corps officer
in Vietnam. He later served as a senior JAG officer
on the Army General Staff, at the Pentagon. His
comments do not represent the views of the US
Department of Defense. He serves as a Senator
in Virginia state, representing the 13th District.





REQUIEM

Efran and Poet's tribute to
 all those killed by wars

__________________________________________

* Please scroll further down...
to discover all the latest news *

__________________________________________



"Death to Russia" Riots in Kiev:
 A Sign of War to Come
in Donbass?

February 22nd, 2018
- Fort Russ -
By Eduard Popov,
translated by Jafe Arnold

Ukraine is irreversibly slipping further into Nazification.
Following the oath-taking of 600 militants of the new-
found National Squads (a subsidiary organization of
the Azov regiment intended to “aid” police in keeping
order) and following the de facto occupation of the
Cherkassy city council (the regional centre right next
to the Kiev region), Ukrainian Nazis are rehearsing
 new assaults in the spirit of Ernst Rohm’s street
fighters from 1920’s Germany.

Like any historical analogy, this one is conditional. The
situation in today’s Ukraine is much worse. While in
Weimar Germany the state as a whole did not indulge
 the Nazis -- nor use the full force of its repressive
apparatus against them, in Ukraine the oligarchic
regime of President Poroshenko has given the
Nazi street movements the green light. Why and
for what purpose, will be discussed below.

For now, let us recap the facts. On December 18th, Kiev
saw Ukrainian “radicals” (Ukrainian Newspeak for out-
right Nazis) from C14, Right Sector, and Nikolai
Kokhanivsky’s Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (which is the continuation of
Bandera’s OUN-b) attack the building of
Rossotrudnichestvo (a Russian agency
promoting Russian culture) with rocks
and eggs.

After this, activists descended on Russian Alfa-Bank and
pelted it with rocks. On their way to the Rossotrudnichestvo
building, the Ukrainian "nationalists" also swooped down on
Russian Sberbank and broke its windows with stones. The
police stationed at Sberbank did not intervene.

What is so special about this situation? What is it here that
allows us to talk of Ukrainian Nazis coordinating with the
Ukrainian police and intelligence services?

First of all, the February 18th actions were prepared and
advertised beforehand. A “rehearsal” was held on February
 17th with a first attack on the Rossotrudnichestvo building.

At that moment, there were around 100 people inside,
including many children present for a theatre rehearsal.

The Nazis broke down the doors, left graffiti inscriptions
 on the walls, destroyed the exhibition in honor of the
Russian opera singer Feodor Chaliapin, and torched
a Russian flag.

Immediately afterwards, the Nazi groups published calls across
social networks to attack the same building and Russian banks
the following day as part of their “Death to Russia” action. In
other words, the February 18th attacks were widely advertised,
rehearsed, and therefore no secret to the Kiev police.

But what did the law enforcement of the Ukrainian capital do?
According to the independent Ukrainian resource, strana.ua,
on February 17th the Kiev police broke their security contract
with Rossotrudnichestvo’s office in Kiev. A photo has since
been linked, of an official letter from the police department
 to the head of the Kiev branch of Rossotrudnichestvo,
Konstantin Vorobyev. The letter says that due to “force
majeure circumstances”, the police were hereby
 unilaterally cancelling their contract for the
 protection of premises at Borisoglebskaya
 street, starting at 21:00 on February 17th.

Thus, the Ukrainian state de facto gave the green light
 to Ukrainian Nazi attacks on cultural and financial
 organizations belonging to a country which maintains
 diplomatic and trade relations with Ukraine and on
whose territory around 4.4 million Ukrainian migrant
workers earn their living. Russia, alongside the EU,
 is still Ukraine’s main trading partner.

In my previous articles, I’ve repeatedly pointed out the link
between Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and the
main Ukrainian “Aryan”, Andrey Biletsky. As it turns out,
Avakov’s ties are not limited to the Azov regiment and
National Squads. Kokhanivsky’s OUN, Right Sector, and
 C14 are organizations operating at different levels of
ministerial subordination. For example, the C14 racists
 are considered to be the “personal proxy” Nazis of the
SBU, used to carry out sensitive tasks.

Judging by everything at hand, I would presume that the
attack on the Russian cultural centre was more than, or
 not so much of, an interior ministry affair, and that Avakov
 is pursuing political goals which differ, for example, from
the repetitious demonstrations of force and political
stances that Avakov & Biletsky coordinate in tandem.

I understand Avakov’s goal to be “warming up” a pseudo-
patriotic spirit in Ukrainian society as much as possible
and thereby creating a favorable psychological atmosphere
in the run-up to a new war in Donbass for which, in line with
 our previous analyses, Russia is increasingly being presented
 as the main enemy of the Ukrainian oligarch-Nazi state. After
all, Ukraine's military preparations in the “Anti-Terrorist
Operation Zone” need appropriate propagandistic support,
as only a minority of Ukrainian society wants war in
Donbass, much less, a suicidal war with Russia.

By all accounts, war will break out very soon. I would like to
be mistaken in this prediction, but Ukrainian military and
political developments, seem to suggest that war
is coming.

Do sane Ukrainians recognize this threat? Are those who
once supported the Euromaidan & ATO, now reeling back
 in fear of the torchlight marches of Ukrainian Nazis and
their rehearsals for seizing power? Without a doubt, yes.

For example, following numerous threats, searches, and
SBU allegations of “revealing state secrets” (?), the editor-
in-chief of strana.ua, Igor Guzhva, fled to Austria. If he had
not fled, Guzhva would have shared the fate of those dozens
 of Ukrainian opposition journalists who have been killed
under mysterious circumstances. Perhaps his site’s reporting
 on the Nazi attack on Russian cultural & financial institutions
will be portrayed as an “FSB operation.”

Another clever Ukrainian who supported the Ukrainian state’s
suicide on the Euromaidan and who now fears the possible
implications of a Maidan 3.0, the political analyst Oleg
Voloshin, wrote on social networks on the events of
February 17th and 18th: “If this is not a lite version
of 1917, then I don’t know what else to compare it to.
Those who say that peacekeepers & external control
must be imposed on the whole territory of Ukraine,
and not only in Donbass, are right. Someone has to
 rein in this lumpen revolt under nationalist slogans.”

This is a more than relevant statement, especially if we
 consider the fact that the head of the OUN movement,
Nikolai Kokhanivsky, promised that riots at Russian
facilities in Kiev, will continue.

However, the sobering-up of people like Voloshin makes
little difference. The “Death to Russia” action and the
National Squads’ march speak to something bigger
than a mere dead-end of the Euromaidan. In my
opinion, all of this is the logical result of the
evolution of the Ukrainian idea, as such.

On this note, I’ll end this article with a polemical statement:
humanity’s main enemy in Ukraine is not Ukrainian Nazis,
but “Ukrainianism” itself. The first is the brainchild off-
spring of the second. The spiritual roots of Ukrainian
Nazism can be traced back to the semi-literate,
malicious verses of the “Ukrainian God”,
Taras Shevchenko.

Eduard Popov is a Rostov State University graduate with a
PhD in history and philosophy. In 2008, he founded the
Center for Ukrainian Studies of the Southern Federal
University of Russia, and from 2009-2013, he was the
founding head of the Black Sea-Caspian Center of the
 Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, an analytical
institute of the Presidential Administration of Russia.
In June 2014, Popov headed the establishment of the
Representative Office of Donetsk People's Republic
 in Rostov-on-Don, and actively participated in
humanitarian aid efforts in Donbass. In addition
to being Fort Russ' guest analyst since June,
2016, Popov is currently the leading research
fellow of the Institute of the Russian Abroad
and ounding director of the Europe Center
 for Public and Information Cooperation.

________________________________________


World Will Not Survive the US'
 Neocons' Doctrine of US World
 Hegemony - Paul Graig Roberts
Wednesday, February 7th, 2018

"The government of the United States is clearly in
demonic hands. We are overflowing with proof",
writes American well known analytist and ex-
official Paul Graig Roberts in his website.

Take today (2-2-18) for example. A report from the
House Intelligence Committee was released that
is proof that the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
 the Department of Justice (sic), and the
Democratic National Committee are
engaged in a conspiracy against
 American democracy and the
President of the United States,
 with the full support of the
presstitute media.

As if that is not enough, also released today, is the
Pentagon’s new Nuclear Posture Review. A nuclear
posture review specifies a country’s attitude to
nuclear weapons and their use. In past posture
reviews, nuclear weapons were regarded as
unusable except in retaliation for a nuclear
 attack. The assumption was that no one
would use them. There was always the
possibility that false warnings of incoming
ICBMs would result in the nuclear button
being pushed, thus setting off Armageddon.

There were many false warnings during the Cold War
President Ronald Reagan was very concerned about
a false warning resulting in mass death and destruction.

This is why his principal goal was to end the Cold War,
which he succeeded in doing. It did not take
successor governments long, to
resurrect the Cold War.

The new US nuclear posture is a reckless, irresponsible,
and destabilizing departure from the previous attitude
 toward nuclear weapons. The use of even a small part
of the existing arsenal of the United States would be
sufficient to destroy life on earth. Yet, the posture
review calls for more weapons, speaks of nuclear
weapons as “usable,” and justifies their use in
First Strikes even against countries that do
not have nuclear weapons.

This is an insane escalation. It tells every country that
 the US government believes in the first use of nuclear
weapons against any & every country. Nuclear powers
 such as Russia & China must see this to be a massive
 increase in the threat level from the US.

Those responsible for this document should be committed
to insane aslyums, not left in policy positions where they
can put it into action.

President Trump is being blamed for the aggressive US
nuclear posture announced today. However, the
 document is a neoconservative product. Trump,
 perhaps, could have prevented the document’s
 release, but under pressure as he is by the
accusation that he conspired with Putin to
steal the US presidential election from
Hillary, Trump cannot afford to
 antagonize the neoconized
Pentagon.

The neoconservatives are a small group of conspirators.
Most neoconservatives are Jews allied with Israel. Some
 are dual-citizens. They created an ideology of US world
 hegemony, specifying that the chief goal of US foreign
policy is to prevent the rise of any other power that
could serve as a constraint on US unilateralism.

As neoconservatives control US foreign policy, this explains
 US hostility toward Russia and China and also the neo-
conservatives’ use of the US military to remove
governments in the Middle East regarded by
Israel as obstacles to Israeli expansion. For
two decades the US has been fighting wars
for Israel in the Middle East. This fact proves
 the power and influence of the insane neo-
conservatives. It is certain, that people as
 insane as the neoconservatives, would
launch a nuclear attack on Russia
and China.

The Russian and Chinese governments seem to be
 completely unaware of the threat that the neo-
conservatives pose to them. I have never
experienced in my interviews with Russians
 and Chinese, any awareness of the neo-
conservative ideology. Possibly, it is
too insane for them to grasp.

Ideologues such as the neoconservatives are not fact-based

They are chasing their dream of world hegemony. Russia
and China are in the way of this hegemony. Having learned
 the limits of US conventional military power—after 16 years
 the US “superpower” has been unable to defeat a few
thousand lightly armed Taliban in Afghanistan—the
neo-conservatives know that conventional invasions
of Russia or China, would lead to the total defeat of
US forces.

Therefore, the neoconservatives have elevated nuclear
weapons to a First Strike, usable, arsenal that in the
neoconservative dream of world hegemony can be
 used to destroy Russia and China.

Ideologues who divorce themselves from the facts
 create a virtual world for themselves. Their belief
 in their ideology blinds them to the risks for them-
selves and others that they impose on the world.

It is clear enough that without the utterly corrupt Obama
Department of Justice (sic) and FBI, the utterly corrupt
Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, and
the utterly corrupt American and European presstitute
 media working to destroy Trump’s presidency by
framing him up as “a Russian agent,” President
Trump, on understanding that the Pentagon’s
posture review would worsen, not normalize,
relations with Russia, would have deep-sixed
the demonic document that threatens all
 life on earth.

Thanks to the American liberal/progressive/left, the
entirety of the world is faced with a far more likely
nuclear demise than ever threatened us during the
 Cold War with the Soviet Union.

By its collaboration with the military/security complex
and the corrupt Hillary DNC, the liberal/progressive/left
has forever discredited itself. It is now seen by every
thinking person worldwide as an insane propaganda
ministry for the neoconservatives’ plan to use nuclear
weapons to eliminate constraints on US unilateralism.

The liberal/progressive/left has endorsed
“hegemony or death.”

They will get death. For all of us.

(Source - DONi News Agency)

According to: PaulGraigRoberts.org


______________________________________



Why There Is No End in Sight to
America’s Generational Conflicts
Wednesday February 7th, 2018

FNA - At a time when the US is laying the groundwork
 for its next wars in the Middle East, it’s a bit too early
 for Iraqi government officials to jump to the conclusion
 that because of the victory over ISIL, US ground troops
have begun withdrawing from the country, as part of a
substantial drawdown.

Lest they forget, US officials have long maintained their
presence in Iraq is “permanent,” suggesting any draw-
down would be limited. Moreover, the Pentagon regime
doesn’t even give us figures on troop levels in Iraq
anymore, so large numbers of troops could likely
be withdrawn and there would still be enough
 troops in Iraq as to be in excess of the latest
published levels. Besides, the entire narrative
 of ISIL – the US’s own creation - having been
defeated might not be something the Pentagon
 regime wants to like either --- as it is liable to
harm the justification of them keeping their
occupying troops in Iraq and the rest of the
region, eternally.

In the case of Syria, the US’s perpetual war is
far from over, while the Turkish military invasion
of Afrin is about to be added to the rubble of the
 region too.  As a consequence, the damage that
began with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has
now spread to Turkey, already filled with Syrian
 refugees. Angry over US backing for separatist
Kurdish forces in northern Syria, Ankara is
 potentially repeating on a small scale the
 American blunder of 2003.  It could get
big and the illegal invasion won’t go
splendidly.

Coming back to the initial argument, US troops have
already occupied northern Syria and, as Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson only recently announced,
they are slated to stay there not just until the
last ISIL fighter is wiped off the face of the
Earth, but until the end of time - a decision
for which the Trump White House has no
UN endorsement or Syrian sanction. This
is because the stated goal is to support
separatist Kurdish fighters in the region
and play a role in undermining both the
Syrian government and its Iranian
backers.

As it is, it’s hard to know what will come of all this,
 as with so much else in US war-making over these
last 17 years, it’s reasonable to assume that it
won’t be good, or peaceable, or end particularly
well, or possibly at all.  But one thing is certain:
There will be no US military victory in Syria, nor
will there be any Turkish military victory. Quite
the opposite, if the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Yemen are any indication, the damage
will only spread, more civilians will die, more
homes will be destroyed, more populations
will be uprooted, and more embittered locals
will be primed to join yet newer terror groups
almost everywhere.

To that end, a network of 800 military bases spread
across 172 countries, will help enable the US’s
perpetual wars and generational conflicts - the
desire for absolute power with precision strike
systems, highly mobile nuclear missiles and
sophisticated area-denial systems. By the
count of the Pentagon regime, at the end of
the last fiscal year about 291,000 personnel
were deployed in 183 countries worldwide,
which is the functional definition of a military
uncontained and unaccountable.  After all, the
 War Party leaders continue to insist that the
US must have a military not only second to
none... but globally dominant.

In today’s climate of generational conflicts, however,
don’t expect the War Party to abandon the notion of
 unending wars and generational conflicts, much less
 accept the changing conditions in the world that
nullify US power, adopt new doctrines that encapsulate
 ideas of impending conflicts and wage peace, turn the
Pentagon regime into a “defense” department, start
following the UN Charter and International Law, learn
lessons from the Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen
fiascos, choose to rein in its pride and vanity, and
 take ownership of the resulting mess, and leave.

The message all this tells, is too painful to hear. The
innocent civilians wounded, crippled and dead, in
this great US charade, will always be swiftly carted
offstage throughout the Middle East and beyond.

They are forever the usual victims of the US’s
perpetual wars and dominance, doomed to
float around the edges of the US's
consciousness, all the while,
ignored and reviled.


________________________________________________

THE TRUTH ABOUT WHITE
AMERICAN EMPIRE's GENOCIDE



Facebook Says It Is
Deleting Accounts
at Direction of US &
 Israeli Governments
January 2nd, 2018,
by Glenn Greenwald

As is always true of censorship, there is one principle
driving all of this: Facebook will submit to and obey
the censorship demands of governments and
 officials who actually wield power over it,
 while ignoring those who do not...

In September last year, we noted that Facebook
representatives were meeting with the Israeli
government, to determine which Facebook
accounts of Palestinians should be deleted
on the grounds they constitute “incitement.”

The meetings — called for and presided over
by one of the most extremist & authoritarian
Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister
 Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened
Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply
 with Israeli deletion orders would result in the
enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do
 so, upon pain of being severely fined or
even blocked in the country.

The predictable results of those meetings are now clear
and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been
on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists
who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation,
all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed,
Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about
how obedient Facebook is, when it comes to
 Israeli censorship orders:

Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the
 agreement between the Israeli government and
Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked
said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the
social media giant over the previous four months
asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.”
She said Facebook granted 95% of the requests.

She’s right. The submission to Israeli dictates is hard to
 overstate: As the New York Times put it in December of
 last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook
and send the company posts they consider incitement.
Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”

What makes this censorship particularly consequential is
that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of
Facebook was for following news.” That means Israeli
officials have virtually unfettered control over a key
communications forum of Palestinians.

In the weeks following those Facebook-Israel meetings,
reported The Independent, “the activist collective
Palestinian Information Centre, reported that at least
10 of their administrators’ accounts for their Arabic
and English Facebook pages — followed by more
 than 2 million people — have been suspended,
seven of them permanently, which they say is
a result of new measures put in place in the
wake of Facebook’s meeting with Israel.”

Last March, Facebook briefly shut down the Facebook
 page of the political party, Fatah, followed by millions,
“because of an old photo posted of former leader
Yasser Arafat holding a rifle.”

A 2016 report from the Palestinian Centre for
Development and Media Freedoms detailed
how extensive the Facebook censorship is:

Pages and personal accounts
 that were filtered and blocked:

Palestinian Dialogue Network (PALDF.net) Gaza now,
Jerusalem News Network, Shihab agency, Radio
Bethlehem 2000, Orient Radio Network, page
Mesh Heck, Ramallah news, journalist Huzaifa
Jamous from Abu Dis, activist Qassam Bedier,
activist Mohammed Ghannam, journalist Kamel
Jbeil, administrative accounts for Al Quds Page,
administrative accounts Shihab agency, activist
Abdel-Qader al-Titi, youth activist Hussein
Shajaeih, Ramah Mubarak (account is
activated), Ahmed Abdel Aal (account
is activated), Mohammad Za’anin (still
deleted), Amer Abu Arafa (still deleted),
 Abdulrahman al-Kahlout (still deleted).

Needless to say, Israelis have virtually free rein to post
whatever they want about Palestinians. Calls by Israelis
 for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Face-
book, and largely remain undisturbed.

As Al Jazeera reported last year, “Inflammatory speech
 posted in the Hebrew language … has attracted much
less attention from the Israeli authorities & Facebook.”
One study found that “122,000 users directly called for
violence with words like ‘murder,’ ‘kill,’ or ‘burn.’ Arabs
were the No. 1 recipients of hateful comments.” Yet
there appears to be little effort by Facebook to
 censor any of that.

Though some of the most inflammatory and explicit calls for
 murder are sometimes removed, Facebook continues to
allow the most extremist calls for incitement against
Palestinians to flourish. Indeed, Israel’s leader,
Benjamin Netanyahu, has often used social
media to post what is clearly incitement to
 violence against Palestinians generally. In
contrast to Facebook’s active suppression
against Palestinians, the very idea that
Facebook would ever use its censorship
power against Netanyahu, or other
prominent Israelis calling for
violence & inciting attacks
...is unthinkable.

 Indeed, as Al Jazeera concisely put it, “Facebook hasn’t
met with Palestinian leaders, to discuss their concerns.”

The US government — meaning, at the moment, the
 Trump administration — has the unilateral and
unchecked power to force the removal of any-
one it wants from Facebook and Instagram by
simply including them on a sanctions list.

Does
anyone think this is a good outcome? Does
 anyone trust the Trump administration — or
any other government — to compel social
media platforms to delete & block anyone
it wants to be silenced? As the ACLU’s
Jennifer Granick told the Times:

’’It’s not a law that appears to be written or designed to
 deal with the special situations where it’s lawful or
appropriate to repress speech. This sanctions law
is being used to suppress speech, with little
consideration of the free expression values
and the special risks of blocking speech, as
opposed to blocking commerce or funds, as
the sanctions were designed to do. That’s
really problematic.’’

Does Facebook’s policy of blocking people from its platform
 who are sanctioned apply to all governments? Obviously not.
It goes without saying that if, say, Iran decided to impose
sanctions on Chuck Schumer for his support of Trump’s
policy of recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital,
Facebook would never delete the accounts of the
Democratic Party Senate minority leader — just
as Facebook would never delete the accounts
of Israeli officials who incite violence against
Palestinians or those who are sanctioned by
Palestinian officials. Just last month, Russia
 announced retaliatory sanctions against
various Canadian officials and executives,
but, needless to say, Facebook then took no
action to censor them or block their accounts.

Similarly, would Facebook ever dare censor US
 politicians or journalists who use social media
 to call for violence against America’s enemies?

 To ask the question, is to answer it.

(Precis of original article in Russia Insider:
http://russia-insider.com/en/facebook-says-it-
deleting-accounts-direction-us-and-israeli-
governments/ri22069)


________________________________________________


Back to the future…NATO self-
fulfilling war plans for Russia
by Finian Cunningham
Published time: November 11th, at 4:30pm

Defense ministers of the US-led NATO alliance, this week,
 endorsed proposals to set up two new military commands
 – and it is clear Russia is the target of what are, in effect,
 war plans.

The setting up of an Atlantic command and a logistical hub
in Europe, to facilitate the transfer of troops and weapons,
was openly discussed by NATO officials as being aimed
 at Russia, during their two-day summit in Brussels
this week.

The two new commands being proposed are the first expansion
 of NATO’s command structure since the end of the Cold War
over 25 years ago. It’s a retrograde move that is not only
 an unnecessary, dangerous provocation to Russia,
risking self-fulfilling war threats. Moreover, NATO’s
renewed organizational cranking is openly calling
for the integration of European societies and
economies into its madcap military escalation.

European citizens, whether they like it or not, are effectively
being dragooned into a state of war, with attendant social
burdens to pay for that state of war, let alone being made
 to live with the risk of ultimate catastrophe, from all-out
hostilities erupting.

Alexander Grushko, Russia’s official on NATO matters, said:
“It is evident now that, by making such decisions, NATO
members are apparently inspired by Cold War-era
strategies.” He added: “It is evident that the task
of confrontation with Russia, lies at the core of
 those efforts.”

Grushko also put the new NATO organizational expansion in
 the context of an ongoing aggressive buildup over several
years, carried out by the US-led military alliance, along
Russia’s borders.

In typical fashion, however, Western news media readily
turned reality on its head by echoing NATO officials in
their justification for the planned military expansion
as being (allegedly) necessitated by “Russian
aggression.”

Reuters called the new command posts a “deterrent factor
 against Russia.” While US government-run Radio Free
Europe said that the expansion was “to counter the
growing threat from Russia.”

Western media gave NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg
free rein to accuse Russia of “attacking” Ukraine, “annexing”
Crimea, and recently holding threatening war maneuvers on
“NATO’s eastern flank.” The latter was a reference to the
Zapad military defense exercises carried out by Russia
every four years – held on its own territory or that of an
 ally.  The idiotic “NATO’s eastern flank” made
apparently intelligible by Western media.

As befitting a propaganda service, rather than news services,
the Western media uniformly omit any mention of how NATO
states were instrumental in staging a coup d’état in Ukraine
in February 2014, overthrowing an elected government back
 then with neo-Nazis who had designs on viciously
suppressing ethnic Russians in Crimea and
eastern Ukraine.

RFE reported: “Russia occupied and seized Ukraine's Crimean
Peninsula in March 2014 and backs separatists whose war
against Kiev’s forces has killed more than 10,000 people
 in eastern Ukraine since April of that year.”

Note how Russia and separatists are
subtly blamed for killing 10,000 people.

RFE added: “A series of potentially dangerous close encounters
 between Russian and NATO warplanes and navy ships in
 recent months has added to the tension, with the
alliance accusing Moscow of aggressive
maneuvers in the air and at sea.”

Well, perhaps “close encounters” would not happen if the NATO
alliance could refrain from its escalation of warplanes and navy
patrols in the Baltic and Black Seas.

Stoltenberg “explained” the purpose of NATO’s two new command
structures. “It is about how to move [American] forces across the
Atlantic and how to move forces across Europe,” he said.

He added: “We have been very focused on out-of-area expeditionary
military operations, now we have to increase the focus on collective
 defense in Europe, and that’s the reason why we are adapting the
command structure.”

You have to admire the former Norwegian prime minister’s verbal
skills for euphemism. By “out-of-area expeditionary military
operations,” he was referring to US-led NATO wars in
 Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, among other overseas
operations, which have resulted in the destruction
of nation-states, over a million civilian deaths, the
spread of terrorism and the chaos of mass
human
displacement and refugees.

Now by “increasing focus on the defense of Europe,”
 the 29-member NATO club – officially charged with
 maintaining security – will be further ratcheting up
 tensions with Russia to the point where an out-
break of war is a grave risk.

Earlier, Stoltenberg claimed that the world was more
dangerous than ever since the end of the Cold War.
Provocatively, and recklessly, he cited “Russian
aggression” alongside North Korea’s nuclear
program and international terrorism as the
three reasons for his morbid outlook.

“We have proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in
North Korea, we have terrorists, instability, and we have
a more assertive Russia. It is a more dangerous world,”
said Stoltenberg in an interview with Britain’s Guardian
newspaper, which, of course, did not challenge any of
his assertions.

Perhaps if US President Donald Trump were to hold a full
summit with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the de
facto leader of NATO might get Russia’s perspective
and assurance that it has no such malicious plans
for “invading Europe.”

But such is the relentless Russophobia and media hysteria
 over “Russian aggression”, that Trump and Putin – the
leaders of the two most powerful nuclear states – are
confined to only having a glancing conversation on
the sidelines of international summits, such as the
APEC conference in Vietnam this week.

Last month, German publication Der Spiegel reported on a
secret NATO document which showed the alliance “is
preparing for a possible war with Russia.” Such is the
irremediable propaganda spouted by NATO officials
and regurgitated by Western media, that these war
plans are becoming self-fulfilling.

What is even more sinister is that NATO is militarizing the entire
European society and civilian infrastructure, to accommodate
 its ludicrous war mania. At the summit this week in Brussels,
NATO officials said European governments and the private
sector must coordinate policies, infrastructure, and laws
to be able to facilitate the new transmission belt of
military operations from the Atlantic to Russia’s
 borders.

Jens Stoltenberg said “any new command must ensure that
legislation easing the transportation of troops & equipment
 across various national borders, is fully implemented.”

He added: “And we need to improve infrastructure, such as
roads, bridges, railways, runways, and ports. So NATO is
now updating the military requirements for civilian
infrastructure.”

So, let’s get this straight: in an era of economic austerity when
the European public is being clobbered with cutbacks and
hardships, the NATO military machine wants governments
to orient society and infrastructure to serve its war
objectives against Russia.

Irrational, insatiable NATO wants to turn Europe into an
entire garrison for war with Russia – a war which the
 majority of European citizens do not want or believe
 is, in any way, based on credible reasons.

NATO is not just going back to the future by revamping old Cold
 War strategies and Russophobia. It is destroying the future for
 European democratic and social development. Even more
dastardly, it could obliterate the future by driving
recklessly toward a wholly unnecessary war
with Russia.

(Source - RT)


_____________________________________________


West eyes recolonization of Africa
 by endless war; removing Gaddafi
 was just first step
by Dan Glazebrook
October 20th, 2017

Dan Glazebrook is a freelance political writer who has written for
 RT, Counterpunch, Z magazine, the Morning Star, the Guardian,
the New Statesman, the Independent and Middle East Eye,
amongst others. His 1st book “Divide and Ruin: The West’s
 Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis” was published by
Liberation Media in October 2013. It featured a collection
 of articles written from 2009 onwards examining the links
 between economic collapse, the rise of the BRICS, war
on Libya and Syria and 'austerity'. He is currently
researching a book on US-British use of sectarian
 death squads against independent states and
movements from Northern Ireland & Central
America in the 1970s and 80s, to the
Middle
East and Africa today.

Exactly six years ago, on October 20th, 2011, Muammar Gaddafi
was murdered, joining a long list of African revolutionaries
martyred by the West, for daring to dream of continental
 independence.

Earlier that day, Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte had been occupied
by Western-backed militias, following a month-long battle during
 which NATO and its ‘rebel’ allies pounded the city’s hospitals
 and homes with artillery, cut off its water and electricity, and
publicly proclaimed their desire to ‘starve [the city] into
submission’. The last defenders of the city, including
 Gaddafi, fled Sirte that morning, but their convoy
was tracked and strafed by NATO jets, killing 95
people. Gaddafi escaped the wreckage but was
captured shortly afterward. I will spare you the
 gruesome details, which the Western media
gloatingly broadcast across the world as a
triumphant snuff movie, suffice to say that
he was tortured and eventually shot dead.

We now know, if testimony from NATO’s key Libyan ally Mahmoud
Jibril is to be believed, it was a foreign agent, likely French, who
delivered the fatal bullet. His death was the culmination of not
only seven months of NATO aggression, but of a campaign
against Gaddafi and his movement, the West had been
 waging for over three decades.

Yet it was also the opening salvo in a new war -
 a war for the militarily recolonization of Africa.

The year 2009, two years before Gaddafi’s murder, was a pivotal
one for US-African relations. First, because China overtook the
 US as the continent’s largest trading partner; and second
as Gaddafi was elected president of the African Union.

The significance of both, for the decline of US influence on the
continent couldn't be clearer. While Gaddafi was spearheading
 attempts to unite Africa politically, committing serious amounts
of Libyan oil wealth to make this dream a reality, China was
quietly smashing the West’s monopoly over export markets
and investment finance. Africa no longer had to go cap-in-
hand to the IMF for loans, agreeing to whatever self-
defeating terms were on offer, but could turn to China
 - or indeed Libya - for investment. And if the US
threatened to cut them off from their markets,
China would happily buy up whatever was on
 offer. Western economic domination of Africa
was under threat, as never before.

The response from the West, of course, was a military one.

Economic dependence on the West - rapidly being shattered
 by Libya and China - would be replaced by a new military
dependence. If African countries would no longer come
begging for Western loans, export markets, and
investment finance, they would have to be put
 in a position where they would come
begging
for Western military aid.

To this end, AFRICOM - the US army’s new ‘African command’ -
had been launched the previous year, but humiliatingly for
George W. Bush, not a single African country would agree
 to host its HQ; instead, it was forced to open shop in
Stuttgart, Germany. Gaddafi had led African opposition
to AFRICOM, as exasperated US diplomatic memos
 later revealed by WikiLeaks, made clear. And US
pleas to African leaders to embrace AFRICOM in
the ‘fight against terrorism’, fell on deaf ears.

After all, as Mutassim Gaddafi, head of Libyan security, had
explained to Hillary Clinton in 2009, North Africa already
had an effective security system in place, through the
African Union’s ‘standby forces,' on the one hand, and
CEN-SAD on the other. CEN-SAD was a regional security
organization of Sahel and Saharan states, with a well-
functioning security system, with Libya as the lynchpin.
The sophisticated Libyan-led counter-terror structure
meant there was simply no need for a US military
 presence. The job of Western planners, then,
was to create such a need.

NATO’s destruction of Libya simultaneously achieved three
strategic goals for the West’s plans for military expansion in
 Africa. Most obviously, it removed the biggest obstacle and
 opponent of such expansion, Gaddafi himself. With Gaddafi
gone, and with a quiescent pro-NATO puppet government in
 charge of Libya, there was no longer any chance that Libya
would act as a powerful force against Western militarism.
Quite the contrary - Libya’s new government was utterly
dependent on such militarism, and knew it.

Secondly, NATO’s aggression served to bring about a total collapse
 of the delicate but effective North African security system, which
had been underpinned by Libya. And finally, NATO’s annihilation of
 the Libyan state effectively turned the country over to the region’s
death squads and terror groups. These groups were then able to
 loot Libya’s military arsenals and set up training camps at their
leisure, using these to expand operations right across the region.

It is no coincidence that almost all of the recent terror attacks in
North Africa - not to mention Manchester - have been either
prepared in Libya or perpetrated by fighters trained in Libya.
Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIS, Mali’s
Ansar Dine, and literally dozens of others, have all greatly
benefited from the destruction of Libya.

By ensuring the spread of terror groups across the region, the
Western powers had magically created a demand for their
military assistance which hitherto did not exist. They had
 literally created a protection racket for Africa.

In an excellent piece of research published last year, Nick Turse
wrote how the increase in AFRICOM operations across the
continent has correlated precisely with the rise in terror
threats. Its growth, he said, has been accompanied by
''increasing numbers of lethal terror attacks across the
continent including those in Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte
d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria,
Somalia, South Sudan, and Tunisia.''

In fact, data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism
and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland shows that
attacks have spiked over the last decade, roughly coinciding with
AFRICOM’s establishment. In 2007, just before it became an
independent command, there were fewer than 400 such
incidents annually in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, the
number reached nearly 2,000. By AFRICOM’s own
official standards, of course, this is a
demonstration of a massive failure.

 Viewed from the perspective of the protection racket, however,
it is
a resounding success, with US military power smoothly
reproducing
the conditions for its own expansion.

This is the Africa policy Trump has now inherited. But because this
 policy has rarely been understood as the protection racket it really
is, many commentators have, as with so many of Trump’s policies,
mistakenly believed he is somehow ‘ignoring’ or ‘reversing’ the
approach of his predecessors. In fact, far from abandoning
this approach, Trump is escalating it with relish.

What the Trump administration is doing, as it is doing in pretty much
every policy area, is stripping the previous policy of its ‘soft power’
niceties to reveal and extend the iron fist which has in fact been in
the driving seat all along. Trump, with his open disdain for Africa,
has effectively ended US development aid for Africa - slashing
overall African aid levels by one third, and transferring
responsibility for much of the rest from the Agency for
 International Development to the Pentagon - while
openly tying aid to the advancement of “US
national security objectives.”

In other words, the US has made a strategic decision to drop
the carrot in favor of the stick. Given the overwhelming
 superiority of Chinese development assistance, this is
 unsurprising. The US has decided to stop trying to
compete in this area, and instead to ruthlessly and
unambiguously pursue the military approach
which
the Bush and Obama administrations
had already
mapped out.

To this end, Trump has stepped up drone attacks, removing the
(limited) restrictions that had been in place during the Obama
era. The result has been a ramping up of civilian casualties,
and consequently of the resentment and hatred which fuels
 militant recruitment. It is unlikely to be a coincidence, for
example, that the al Shabaab truck bombing that killed
 over 300 people in Mogadishu, last weekend, was
carried out by a man from a town which suffered
a major drone attack on civilians, including
women and children, in August.

Indeed, a detailed study by the United Nations recently concluded
that in “a majority of cases, state action appears to be the primary
 factor finally pushing individuals into violent extremism in Africa.”
Of more than 500 former members of militant organizations
interviewed for the report, 71% pointed to “government action,”
 including “killing of a family member or friend” or “arrest of a
 family member or friend” as the incident that prompted them
to join a group. And so the cycle continues: drone attacks
breed recruitment, which produces further terror attacks,
which leaves the states involved more dependent on US
military support. Thus does the West create the demand
 for its own ‘products.'

It does so in another way as well. Alexander Cockburn, in his book
‘Kill Chain,' explains how the policy of ‘targeted killings’ - another
Obama policy ramped up under Trump - also increases the
militancy of insurgent groups. Cockburn, reporting on
a
discussion with US soldiers about the efficacy of
targeted killings, wrote that: “When the topic of
conversation came round to ways of defeating
the [roadside] bombs, everyone was in agree-
ment. They would have charts up on the wall
 showing the insurgent cells they were facing,
often with the names & pictures of the guys
 running them," Rivolo remembers. "When we
asked about going after high-value individuals
 and what effect it was having, they’d say,

 ‘Oh yeah, we killed that guy last month, and we’re getting
 more IEDs than ever.’ They all said the same thing, point
blank: ‘[O]nce you knock them off, a day later you have a
new guy who’s smarter, younger, more aggressive and
is out for revenge.”’


Alex de Waal has written how this is certainly true in Somalia,
where, he says, “each dead leader is followed by a more
radical deputy.'' After a failed attempt in January 2007,
the US killed Al Shabaab’s commander, Aden Hashi
Farah Ayro, in a May 2008 air strike. Ayro’s successor,
 Ahmed Abdi Godane (alias Mukhtar Abu Zubair), was
worse, affiliating the organization with Al-Qaeda. The
 US succeeded in assassinating Godane in September
 2014. In turn, Godane was succeeded by an even
more determined extremist, Ahmad Omar
(Abu Ubaidah).


It was presumably Omar who ordered the recent attack in
Mogadishu, the worst in the country’s recent history.

''If
targeted killing remains a central strategy of the
War
on Terror”, De Waal wrote, “it is set to be
an
endless war.”

But endless war is the whole point. For not only does it force
African countries, finally freeing themselves from dependence
 on the IMF, into dependence on AFRICOM; it also undermines
 China’s blossoming relationship with Africa.

Chinese trade and investment in Africa continues to grow apace.
 According to the China-Africa Research Initiative at John Hopkins
University, Chinese FDI stocks in Africa had risen from just 2% of
the value of US stocks in 2003 to 55% in 2015, when they totaled
$35 billion. This proportion is likely to rapidly increase, given that
 “Between 2009 and 2012, China’s direct investment in Africa grew
at an annual rate of 20.5%, while levels of US FDI flows to Africa
declined by $8 billion in the wake of the global financial crisis”.
Chinese-African trade, meanwhile, topped $200 billion in 2015.

China’s signature ‘One Belt One Road’ policy - to which President
Xi Jinping has pledged $124 billion to create global trade routes
designed to facilitate $2 trillion worth of annual trade - will also
help to improve African links with China. Trump’s policy toward
 the project was summarised by Steve Bannon, his ideological
mentor, and former chief strategist in just eight words:
 “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.”

The West’s deeply destabilizing Africa policy - of simultaneously
creating the conditions for armed groups to thrive while offering
protection against them - goes some way toward realizing this
 ambitious goal. Removing Gaddafi was just the first step.

(Source - RT)

__________________________________________________________


Syrian Girl - The Truth
About The Kurds In Syria



The rising of
Britain’s ‘new politics’

by John Pilger
October 7th, at 11:29am

Journalist, film-maker and author, John Pilger is one of two
to win British journalism’s highest award twice. For his
documentary films, he has won an Emmy and a British
Academy Award, a BAFTA. Among numerous other
 awards, he has won a Royal Television Society
Best Documentary Award. His epic 1979
Cambodia Year Zero is ranked by the
British Film Institute as one of the
 ten most important
 documentaries of
 the 20th century.

Delegates to the recent Labour Party conference in Brighton
 seemed not to notice a video playing. The world’s third
biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, supplier to
Saudi Arabia, was promoting guns, bombs, missiles,
naval ships and fighter aircraft.

It seemed a perfidious symbol of a party in which millions of
Britons now invest their political hopes. Once the preserve
of Tony Blair, it is now led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose career
has been very different and is rare in British establishment
politics.

Addressing the conference, the campaigner Naomi Klein
described the rise of Corbyn as “part of a global
phenomenon. We saw it in Bernie Sanders’
 historic campaign in the US primaries,
powered by millennials who know that
safe centrist politics offers them no
kind of safe future.”

In fact, at the end of the US primary elections last year, Sanders
 led his followers into the arms of Hillary Clinton, a liberal war-
monger from a long tradition in the Democratic Party.

As President Obama’s Secretary of State, Clinton presided
over the invasion of Libya in 2011, which led to a stampede
 of refugees to Europe. She gloated at the gruesome murder
 of Libya’s president. Two years earlier, Clinton signed off
on a coup that overthrew the democratically elected
president of Honduras. That she has been invited to
Wales on 14 October to be given an honorary
doctorate by the University of Swansea
because she is “synonymous with
 human rights” is unfathomable.

Like Clinton, Sanders is a cold-warrior and “anti-communist”
 obsessive with a proprietorial view of the world beyond the
 United States. He supported Bill Clinton’s and Tony Blair’s
illegal assault on Yugoslavia in 1998 and the invasions of
Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, as well as Barack Obama's
campaign of terrorism by drone. He backs the provocation
 of Russia and agrees that the whistleblower Edward
Snowden should stand trial. He has called the late
Hugo Chavez – a social democrat who won
multiple elections - "a dead communist
dictator".

While Sanders is a familiar US liberal politician, Corbyn may
be a phenomenon, with his indefatigable support for the
victims of US and UK imperial adventures, and for
popular resistance movements.

For example, in the 1960s and 70s, the Chagos islanders
 were expelled from their homeland, a British colony in
the Indian Ocean, by a Labour government. An entire
population was kidnapped. The aim was to make way
 for a US military base on the main island of Diego
Garcia: a secret deal for which the British were
“compensated” with a discount of $14 million
off the price of a Polaris nuclear submarine.

I have had much to do with the Chagos islanders and have
 filmed them in exile in Mauritius and the Seychelles, where
 they suffered and some of them “died from sadness”, as I
was told. They found a political champion in a Labour
Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn.

So did the Palestinians. So did Iraqis terrorized by a Labour
prime minister’s invasion of their country in 2003. So did
others struggling to break free from the web of western
power. Corbyn supported the likes of Hugo Chavez, who
 brought more than hope to societies subverted by the
US behemoth.

And yet, now Corbyn is closer to power than he might
have ever imagined, his foreign policy remains a secret.

By secret, I mean there has been rhetoric and little else.
“We must put our values at the heart of our foreign policy,”
 he said at the Labour conference. But what are these
“values”? 

Since 1945, like the Tories, British Labour has been an
 imperial party, obsequious to Washington: a record
exemplified by the crime in the Chagos islands.

What has changed? Is Corbyn saying Labour will uncouple
itself from the US war machine, and the US spying
 apparatus and US economic blockades that
scar humanity?

His shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, says a
Corbyn government “will put human rights back at the
heart of Britain’s foreign policy”. But human rights have
 never been at the heart of British foreign policy - only
“interests”, as Lord Palmerston declared in the 19th
century: the interests of those at the apex of
British society.

Thornberry quoted the late Robin Cook who, as Tony Blair’s
 first Foreign Secretary in 1997, pledged an “ethical foreign
policy” that would “make Britain, once again, a force for
good in the world”.

History is not kind to imperial nostalgia. The recently
commemorated division of India by a Labour
government in 1947 – with a border hurriedly
 drawn up by a London barrister, Gordon
 Radcliffe, who had never been to India
 and never returned – led to blood-
letting on a genocidal scale.

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day
Patrolling the gardens, to keep the assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent, for better or worse, divided.
                                         W.H. Auden, ‘Partition’
 
It was the same Labour government (1945-51), led by Prime
Minister Clement Attlee – “radical” by today’s standards -
that dispatched Gen Douglas Gracey’s British imperial
army to Saigon --- with orders to re-arm the defeated
Japanese in order to prevent Vietnamese nationalists
 from liberating their own country. Thus, the longest
war of the century was ignited.

It was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, whose policy
 of “mutuality” and “partnership” with some of the world’s
most vicious despots, especially in the Middle East, forged
relationships that endure today, often sidelining and
crushing the human rights of whole communities
 and societies. The cause was British “interests”
– oil, power and wealth.

In the “radical” 1960s, Labour’s Defence Secretary, Denis
Healey, set up the Defence Sales Organisation (DSO)
specifically to boost the arms trade and make money
from selling lethal weapons to the world. Healey told
Parliament, “While we attach the highest importance
 to making progress in the field of arms control and
disarmament, we must also take what practical
steps we can to ensure that this country does
 not fail to secure its rightful share of this
valuable market.”

The doublethink was quintessentially Labour. When I later
 asked Healey about this “valuable market”, he claimed
 his decision made no difference to the volume of military
exports. In fact, it led to an almost doubling of Britain’s
share of the arms market. Today, Britain is the second
biggest arms dealer on earth, selling arms and fighter
planes, machine guns and “riot control” vehicles, to
22 of the 30 countries on the British Government’s
 own list of human rights violators.

Will this stop under a Corbyn government? The preferred
model - Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy” – is revealing.
Like Corbyn, Cook made his name as a backbencher and
 critic of the arms trade. “Wherever weapons are sold,”
wrote Cook, “there is a tacit conspiracy to conceal the
reality of war” and “it is a truism that every war for the
 past two decades has been fought by poor countries
with weapons supplied by rich countries”.

Cook singled out the sale of British Hawk fighters to Indonesia
as “particularly disturbing”. Indonesia is "not only repressive
but actually at war on two fronts: in East Timor, where perhaps
 a sixth of the population has been slaughtered … and in West
Papua, where it confronts an indigenous liberation movement”.

As Foreign Secretary, Cook promised “a thorough review of arms
sales”. The then Nobel Peace Laureate, Bishop Carlos Belo of
East Timor, appealed directly to Cook: “Please, I beg you, do
not sustain any longer a conflict which without these arms
sales could never have been pursued in the first place
and not for so very long.”

He was referring to Indonesia’s bombing of East Timor with
British Hawks and the slaughter of his people with British
 machine guns. He received no reply.

The following week Cook called journalists to the Foreign Office
 to announce his “mission statement” for “human rights in a new
 century”. This PR event included the usual private briefings for
selected journalists, including the BBC, in which Foreign Office
officials lied that there was “no evidence” that British Hawk
aircraft were deployed in East Timor.

A few days later, the Foreign Office issued the results of Cook’s
 “thorough review” of arms sales policy. “It was not realistic or
practical,” wrote Cook, “to revoke licences which were valid
and in force at the time of Labour’s election victory”. Suharto’s
 Minister for Defence, Edi Sudradjat, said talks were already
under way with Britain for the purchase of 18 more
Hawk fighters.

“The political change in Britain will not affect our negotiations,”
he said. He was right.

Today, replace Indonesia with Saudi Arabia and East Timor
with Yemen. British military aircraft – sold with the approval
 of both Tory and Labour governments and built by the firm
whose promotional video had pride of place at Labour’s
2017 party conference – are bombing the life out of Yemen,
one of the most impoverished countries in the world, where
half the children are malnourished and there is the greatest
cholera epidemic in modern times.

Hospitals and schools, weddings and funerals have been
attacked. In Ryadh, British military personnel are reported
 to be training the Saudis in selecting targets.

In Labour’s current manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn and his party
 colleagues promised that “Labour will demand a
comprehensive, independent, UN-led investigation
into alleged violations … in Yemen, including air
strikes on civilians by the Saudi-led coalition.
We will immediately suspend any further
arms sales for use in the conflict until
that investigation is concluded.”

But the evidence of Saudi Arabia’s crimes in Yemen is already
documented by Amnesty and others, notably by the
courageous reporting of the British journalist
Iona Craig. The dossier is voluminous.

Labour does not promise to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia.
It does not say Britain will withdraw its support of governments
 responsible for the export of Islamist jihadism. There is no
 commitment to dismantle the arms trade.

The manifesto describes a “special relationship [with the US]
based on shared values. When the current Trump administration
 chooses to ignore them … we will not be afraid to disagree”.

As Jeremy Corbyn knows, dealing with the US is not about
merely “disagreeing”. The US is a rapacious, rogue power
that ought not to be regarded as a natural ally of any state
 championing human rights, irrespective of whether Trump
 or anyone else is President.

When Emily Thornberry , in her conference speech, linked
Venezuela with the Philippines as “increasingly autocratic
 regimes” – slogans bereft of facts and ignoring the
subversive US role in Venezuela - she was
 consciously playing to the enemy: a
tactic with which Jeremy Corbyn
 will be familiar.

A Corbyn government will allow the Chagos islanders the
right of return. But Labour says nothing on renegotiating
 the 50-year renewal agreement that Britain has just
signed with the US allowing it to use the base on
Diego Garcia, from which, it has bombed
Afghanistan and Iraq.

A Corbyn government will “immediately recognize the state
of Palestine”. There is silence on whether Britain will
continue to arm Israel, continue to acquiesce in the
 illegal trade in Israel’s illegal “settlements” and
 treat Israel merely as a warring party --- rather
than as an historic oppressor given immunity
 by Washington and London.

On Britain’s support for Nato’s current war preparations,
Labour boasts that the “last Labour government spent
above the benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP” on Nato. It
says, “Conservative spending cuts have put the UK’s
security at risk” and promises to boost Britain’s
military “obligations”.

In fact, most of the £40 billion Britain currently spends on
 the military is not for territorial defence of the UK but for
 offensive purposes to enhance British “interests” --- as
defined by those who've tried to smear Jeremy Corbyn
 as unpatriotic.

If the polls are reliable, most Britons are well ahead of their
politicians, Tory and Labour. They would accept higher taxes
 to pay for public services; they want the National Health
Service restored to full health. They want decent jobs and
wages & housing and schools; they do not hate foreigners
 but resent exploitative labour. They have no fond memory
of an empire on which the sun never set.

They oppose the invasion of other countries and regard Blair
as a liar.  The rise of Donald Trump has reminded them what
a menace the United States can be, especially with their own
 country in tow.

The Labour Party is the beneficiary of this mood, but many of
 its pledges – certainly in foreign policy – are qualified and
compromised, suggesting, for many Britons, more of
the same.

Jeremy Corbyn is widely and properly recognized for his integrity;
 he opposes the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons; the Labour
Party supports it. But he has given shadow cabinet positions to
 pro-war MPs who support Blairism, tried to get rid of him and
abused him as “unelectable”.

“We are the political mainstream now,” says Corbyn.

Yes, but at what price?

www.johnpilger.com


____________________________________________________________

Moldova is on the Brink of War
September 13th, at 10:55am
 - Fort Russ - By Eduard Popov,
 translated by Jafe Arnold

The confrontation between different branches of the
Moldovan state is only intensifying. To recall, back in
November 2016, the big businessman and Socialist
Party candidate Igor Dodon was elected President
of
Moldova in direct presidential elections,
whereas
before, Moldova’s president
was chosen by parliament.


Dodon’s election illustrated the extent to which the public
supports him and reduced the executive’s dependence on
parliament, the majority of whose deputies are unionists,
or advocates of Moldova being absorbed by neighbouring
 Romania, which is an EU and NATO member.

The leading positions in parliament currently belong to
 the Democratic Party, which is the main opponent of a
rapprochement with Russia. Dodon is also opposed by
the government, which is controlled by the wealthiest
oligarch in Moldova and leader of the Democratic
Party,
Vladimir Plahotniuc.


But the most dangerous force of all is that which lurks
 behind these anti-Dodon (& anti-Russia) forces. This
 force, of course, is the United States of America.

Igor Dodon represents a few qualities which are extremely
undesirable for pro-Western forces. He is for developing
good-neighbourly relations with Russia (the very slogan
of which brought him to power); he is against Moldova
being annexed by Romania; plus, Dodon is against
Moldova being taken over by NATO. Thus, Dodon
figures among a minority of Moldovan politicians,
but with a majority of Moldovans, as a politician
standing for preserving Moldova’s sovereignty.

Dodon has even managed to get some things done. For
 example, he deprived ex-Romanian President Traian
Basescu of Moldovan citizenship, who is one of the
most radical supporters of annexation, who has
imposed & interfered in Moldova’s domestic
affairs.
Dodon has also stood against
solving the
Transnistria problem
by military means.


The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, or Transnistria, arose
 as a reaction to the unionists' course of pursuing Moldova's
annexation by Romania, a scheme which threatened to turn
 Russians, Gagauz, Bulgarians, and Moldovans themselves
into second class citizens in a “Greater Romania.” The left
 bank of the Dniester perfectly remembers the conditions
 prevailing when it was part of the Kingdom of Romania.

 Moreover, the reluctance of the Russian and Gagauz
 population to be in a position of powerless minorities
is shared by many Moldovans. Thus, over the course
 of a short civil war, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian
Republic won its independence, and peace in the
 region has been, according to the 1992 peace
 agreement between Moldova and Russia,
maintained by Russian peacekeepers
stationed in Transnistria.

As a patriot of Moldova, Dodon stands for re-integrating
Transnistria back into Moldova, but by peaceful means.
On September 12th, he voiced a three-point road map
 for peaceful reintegration and rejected plans for
Moldova’s annexation by Romania.

The war games held close to Transnistria's border with
Ukraine by Romania, Ukraine, and NATO countries last
year, plus the blockade of the unrecognized republic’s
 land and air space by Moldova in tandem with Ukraine
 and with Romania’s support, allow us to postulate that
Dodon’s peace plan contradicts the intentions of the
unionists. Annexation advocates would rather
abandon the territory of Transnistria, than
integrate it in Moldova on a federal basis.

The conflict between different branches of the government
has recently been joined by the military, which makes the
 situation even more volatile.

On the eve of September 6th, the Moldovan government
 passed a resolution on a participation of Moldovan troops
 in Rapid Trident international war games in Ukraine held
from September 8th to September 23rd in Lvov region’s
training polygons. President Dodon suspended the
government’s decree, but the military didn't submit.

 Moldovan forces were still sent to the NATO
exercises in
neighboring Ukraine. Dodon
demanded that PM
Pavel Filip fire the
leadership of the Ministry of Defense.

 The President also instructed that an internal
investigation be held to determine who exactly
 violated the presidential decree and, in
turn,
punish and demote them.

Moldova’s Speaker of Parliament, Andrian Candu, reacted to
 the President’s statement with undisguised sarcasm: “The
 military should participate in any activities which allow
them to gain experience. What kind of Commander-in-
Chief are you if you don’t care about the army?”

 The Moldovan military is thus in effect, defying the orders of
 the President who, according to the Moldovan constitution,
is the supreme Commander-in-Chief.

Under these circumstances, Dodon’s prerogatives in 
the foreign policy sphere have been restricted to a
bare
minimum, and in a humiliating manner. In
an
illustrative show of defiance against both
Dodon and Russia, the civilian aircraft
carrying Russian Vice Prime Minister
 Rogozin to Chisinau for talks with
Dodon had its air corridor closed
 by Romania's authorities.

In our opinion, the threat of a military conflict on the
left
bank of the Dniester is growing, in tandem with
the
threat of a coup d’etat in Chisinau. It is highly
unlikely, however, that the situation will have
the same result as the Ukrainian scenario.

Whereas the Euromaidan overwhelmed Kiev and the Anti-
Maidan was too weak, in Chisinau thousands of people
 are prepared to go out into the streets in support of
Moldovan independence, and they are ready for
street fights. What’s more, Dodon seems to have
 stronger nerves than ex-Ukrainian President
 Yanukovych.

Most likely, the situation at hand is an attempt at removing
 Dodon from power relying on legal tricks and the open
support of Western countries and non-governmental
organizations. His orders are, & will continue to be,
simply ignored. Nor can we exclude more radical
scenarios, including a violent overthrow of Dodon
 and even political assassination. Recent European
 history has not seen assassinations of heads of
state, and we can only hope that it won’t. At the
same time, however, the case of Yanukovych’s
escape, in which Russian President Vladimir
Putin was compelled to literally save his
Ukrainian counterpart's life, shows that
pro-US forces will not stop even at
murdering a head of state to
attain their goals.

Dodon’s removal (or elimination) would open a window
of opportunity for NATO & the US. Without asking the
Moldovan people’s opinion (the majority of Moldovan
citizens favour non-aligned status for their country)
Moldova would be dragged into NATO, as was the
case with Montenegro. Then Moldova would be
annexed by Romania, and Romanian fascists
will inevitably try to reimpose control over
the
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic,
with the
active assistance of
Nazi Ukraine.


While Transnistria is important in itself, more important
for these forces, is depriving Russia of a foothold on the
Dniester & dragging Russia into war in a distant theatre.


_____________________________



Avoiding Nuclear War: Why Kim
Jong-Un’s Strategy Makes Sense
Federico Pieraccini
 11/8/2017

Looking at the recent N. Korean testing of two
 intercontinental missiles, it may seem that
 Pyongyang wishes to increase tensions
in the region. A more careful analysis
 however, shows how the DPRK is
 implementing a strategy which
 will likely succeed in averting
 a disastrous war on the
 peninsula.

In the last four weeks, North Korea seems to have
implemented the second phase of its strategy
against South Korea, China and the US.

 The North Korean nuclear program seems to have
 reached an important juncture, with two tests
carried out at the beginning and end of July.
Both missiles seem capable of hitting the
US mainland, although doubts still remain
 over Pyongyang's ability to miniaturize a
nuclear warhead to mount it on an inter-
continental ballistic missile (ICBM).

However, the direction in which North Korea’s
nuclear program is going ensures an important
regional deterrent against Japan and S. Korea,
and in some respects, against the US, which is
 the main reason for North Korea’s development
 of ICBMs. Recent history has repeatedly demo-
nstrated the folly of trusting the West (the fate
 of Gaddafi remains fresh in our minds) and
suggests instead, the building up of an
arsenal, which poses a serious
deterrence to US bellicosity.

It is not a mystery that from 2009 to date, North Korea's
nuclear capacity has increased in direct proportion to
the level of distrust visited on Pyongyang by the West.
Since 2009, the six-party talks concluded, Kim Jong-un
has realized that the continuing threats, practices, and
arms sales of the US to Japan and S. Korea, needed to
 be thwarted in some way, in the interests of defending
the DPRK's sovereignty. Faced with an infinitely lower
spending capacity than the three nations mentioned,
Pyongyang chose a 2-fold strategy: to pursue nuclear
 weapons as an explicit deterrence measure; and to
strengthen its conventional forces, keeping in mind
that Seoul is only a stone’s throw away from the
North Korean artillery.

This 2-fold strategy has, in little more than eight years,
greatly strengthened the ability of the DPRK to resist
infringement of its sovereignty. In contrast to the idea
commonly promoted in the West's media, Pyongyang
has vowed not to use nuclear weapons first, reserving
 their use only in response to aggression against itself.
In the same way, a pre-emptive attack on Seoul, using
traditional artillery, would be seen as an intolerable
 aggression, dragging Pyongyang into a devastating
war. Kim Jong-un’s determination in developing
conventional and nuclear deterrence, has now
succeeded in establishing a balance of power
 that helps avoid a regional war and, in so
doing, contributes to the strengthening
of overall security in the region ---
contrary to what many believe.

The reason the US continues to raise tensions with
 Pyongyang and threaten a conflict, is not out of a
concern to protect her Japanese or S. Korean
allies, as one may initially be led to think.

The United States in the region, has a central aim
 that doesn't concern Kim Jong-un or his nuclear
 weapons. Rather, it is driven by their perennial
necessity, to increase forces in the region for
the US' purposes: of maintaining a balance of
military forces (Asian Pivot) and ultimately,
 trying to contain the rise of the People's
 Republic of China (PRC).

One might even argue that this strategy poses dangers
 not only to the entire region, but, in the case of any
 confrontation between Washington and Beijing,
the entire planet, given the nuclear arsenal
possessed by the US and the People's
Republic of China.

In this respect, the triangular relationship between China
North Korea and South Korea, takes on another aspect.
As always, every action is accompanied by a reaction.

 The statement that Beijing would prefer to get rid of
 the DPRK leadership is without foundation. Central in
the minds of Chinese policy makers is the threat of a
US containment that could undermine the country's
 economic growth. This strategic planning is well
known in Pyongyang and explains in part why the
DPRK leadership still proceeds with actions that
are not viewed well by Beijing. From the North
Korean point of view, Beijing has advantages
 from sharing a border with the DPRK, which
offers a friendly leadership not hostile
to Beijing.

Pyongyang is aware of the economic, political, &
military burden of this situation, but tolerates it:
receiving the necessary resources from Beijing
to survive and develop the country.

This complex relationship leads the DPRK to carry out missile
 tests in the hope of gaining many benefits. First of all, it hopes
 to gain a regional, and possibly a global, deterrence against
any surprise attacks. Secondly, it forces South Korea to have
a symmetrical response to DPRK missile tests, & this strategy,
coming from North Korea diplomacy, is far from improvised or
incongruous. In recent years, S. Korea’s response has come in
 the form of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
 system, designed to intercept missiles. As repeatedly
explained, it is useless against North Korean rockets,
but poses a serious threat to the Chinese nuclear
arsenal, as its powerful radars are able to scout
 much of China's territory...  also being ideally
positioned to intercept (at least in theory) a
responsive nuclear strike from China. In a
nutshell, THAAD is a deadly threat to
China's strategic nuclear parity.

From the point of view of the four nations involved in the region,
each has different aims. For the US, there are many advantages
 in deploying THAAD: in increases pressure on China, as well as
 concludes an arms sale that is always welcomed by the military-
industrial complex; it also gives the impression of addressing the
 DPRK nuclear problem adequately. South Korea, however, finds
 itself in a special situation, with the former president now under
 arrest for corruption. The new president, Moon Jae-in, would
prefer dialogue rather than deployment of new THAAD batteries.

In any case, after the latest ICBM test, Moon required an additional
THAAD system in the Republic of Korea, in addition to the launchers
 already there. With no particular options available, to conduct a
diplomatic negotiation, Seoul is following Washington in a spiral
of escalation that certainly does not benefit the peninsula's
economic growth. Ultimately, the PRC sees an increase in
the number of THAAD carriers close to the country, and
 the DPRK is growing in its determination to pursue a
nuclear deterrent. Indeed, Pyongyang' strategy is
working: on the one hand, they are developing a
nuclear weapon, to deter external enemies; on
the other, they are obligating the PRC to adopt
a particularly hostile attitude towards South
Korea’s deployment of THAAD. In this sense
the numerous economic actions of Beijing
towards Seoul, can be explained: as a
response to the deployment of the
THAAD batteries.

China is the main economic partner of South Korea, and this
trade & tourism limitation is quite damaging to S. Korea’s
economy.

This tactic has been used by North Korea for the last several
years, and the results, in addition to the recent economic
crunch between the PRC and South Korea have indirectly
 led to the end of the reign of the corrupt leader Park Geun-
hye, an ever-present puppet in US hands. The pressure that
 the DPRK applies to bilateral relations between China and
S. Korea, increases with each launch of an ICBM carrier,
and is the logic behind these missile tests. Pyongyang
feels justified in urging its main ally, China, to step up
actions against Seoul, to force it to compromise in a
diplomatic negotiation with Pyongyang, without the
overbearing presence of its US ally pushing for war.

The main problem in the relations between South Korea,
China and North Korea is represented by US influence
--- and its need to prevent a rapprochement between
 these parties. As already stated, the US needs the
DPRK to justify its presence in the region, aiming
- in reality - at Chinese containment. Pyongyang
has been isolated and sanctioned for almost 50
 years, yet serves to secure China’s southern
 border in the form of a protected friend,
 rather than an enemy.

This situation, more than any United Nations sanction to
which the PRC adheres, guarantees a lasting relationship
 between the countries. Beijing is well aware of the weight
of isolationism and the economic burden on North Korea,
which is why Beijing is symmetrically increasing the
pressure on South Korea, to negotiate.

In this situation, the US is trying to remain relevant in the
regional dispute, while not having a capacity to influence
the Chinese decisions that clearly rely on other tactics...
specifically, putting pressure on South Korea.

 In military terms, as explained above, Washington can't
 start any military confrontation against the DPRK. The
consequences, in addition to millions of deaths, would
 lead Seoul to break relations with Washington & seek
 an immediate armistice, cutting off the United States
from negotiations and likely expelling US troops from
 its territory. Ultimately, there is no S. Korean ability
to influence the political process in the North, while
 they continue to be flanked by the United States in
 terms of warfare (very aggressive joint exercises).

The influence Washington can exert on Pyongyang is zero,
having fired all cartridges, with over 50 years of sanctions.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that the United States cannot afford to
attack the DPRK. Pyongyang will continue to develop its
own nuclear arsenal, with Beijing's covert blessing, in
 spite of its officially continuing to condemn these
developments. At the same time, South Korea
is likely to persevere with a hostile attitude,
especially in regard to the deployment
of new THAAD batteries.

Sooner or later, Seoul will come to a breaking point, as
a result of further restrictions on trade between China
and South Korea. As long as Seoul is able to absorb
 Chinese sanctions, little will change.

What will lead to a major change in the region will be the
economic effect of these restrictions, that will eventually
 oblige Seoul to consider its role in the region & its future.

Seoul's leadership is aware of the 3 situations that will
hardly change, namely: Pyongyang will never attack first;
Beijing will continue to support North Korea, rather than
accept the United States on its border; and Washington
 isn't able to bring solutions, but only greater chaos and
 a worsening global economic situation to the region.

In the light of this scenario, time is all on the side of Beijing
& Pyongyang. Eventually the economic situation, for Seoul,
will become unbearable, bringing it to the negotiating table
 with a weakened and certainly precarious position. Beijing
 and Pyongyang have a long-term common goal, which is to
 break the bond of submission between S. Korea and the
 United States, freeing Seoul from Washington's neo-
conservative programs to contain China
(on a Russia containment model).

Indirectly coordinated work between Beijing and Pyongyang
 is hardly understandable to Western analysts, but examining
 every aspect, especially with regard to cause-and-effect
relationships, these decisions are not so incomprehensible
 and even more rational, in a broader viewing of the region
and its balance of power. On the one hand, Seoul sees the
 DPRK offering peace, stability and prosperity, based on a
framework agreement between Seoul, Pyongyang and
Beijing. This would also particularly benefit S. Korean
trade with China, eventually returning to more normal
relationships between the two countries, and with
important economic benefits.

The alternative is an alliance with Washington that would
completely eliminate the economic benefits of a healthy
relationship with Beijing. This could even potentially lead
to a war involving millions of deaths, fought on S. Korean
soil and not in the United States. The United States does
 not offer any solutions to South Korea, either in the short
or long term. The only thing Washington is offering, is a
fixed presence in the country, together with a stubborn
 anti-Chinese policy that would have serious economic
 consequences for Seoul.

As paradoxical as it may seem, Kim Jong-un's rockets are
 much less of a threat, than is Seoul’s partnership with
Washington in the region, and in fact, seem to offer
Seoul the ultimate solution to the crisis in
the peninsula.

______________________________________________


US-Congress checkmates
 the Merkel-Europe
5/8/2017
 by Maurizio Blondet

In the draconian sanctions imposed by the US Congress
against Russia, & now signed by Trump, there are some
paradoxical side effects for the so-called leaders of
a United Europe under German hegemony.

 Firstly, if Angela Merkel, Juncker and Mogherini hoped to
 have a global ally in a Congress hostile to Donald Trump
- the protectionist of Americans First - they now have to
find that on the contrary, Congress's anger crisis fights
 and bursts out against its European allies -- especially
 Germany & France, whose companies building North
Stream 2, are now being severely penalized.

Even more than "Americans First" by The Donald, the US
parliamentarians -- notoriously obedient to the American
economic lobbies which are paying them -- want 'their'
Germany to buy liquefied gas from fracked rocks in the
USA, scaled at an incomparably more expensive cost.

Otherwise sanctions. And they will be serious and severe
- as demonstrated by the billions of dollars in fines that
Deutsche Bank will have to pay to the US, and another
 ten European banks (Swiss, German, Dutch) who have
been pursued for doing business - in their respective
countries, perfectly legally - with countries branded
by Washington as "terrorists" & hit with sanctions
 -  like Iran - or charged with "corruption".
 
The US in fact, "are totally committed to the mission of
enforcing a universal morality", wrote journalist Diana
Johnstone, and created agencies such as the Foreign
 Assistance Office, with a budget of $30 million, plus
200 investigators who tirelessly - often with the help
 of their intelligence agencies, who are able to hear
communications around the world - seek business
 practices that are "corrupt" or "distort competition"
 by European companies, to punish them:-  by fines,
 by excluding them from the US Stock Exchange
(with a collapse of reputation and shares) or by
forbidding them to export or operate within the
''Federation''.

France's Alstom (that manufactures high-speed trains)
  investigated by these US bureaucratic bodies in 2014,
 has freed itself from the charge, by selling its electric
division to General Electric, instead of to any other
competitor, which swayed the Washington moralists.

 BNP Paribas in the same year had to pay $9 billion to
 the Americans, because it transferred payments to
countries hit by US sanctions: legal in French law,
 but since the transfers were all in dollars, it fell
under US law. A law where, if you use dollars
to pay for an Iranian rug, you become a "US
 person" subject to that law and you have to
 hire US lawyers: who advise you to plead
 guilty to plead a fine - the bargain plea -
 to avoid even worse penalties.

Obviously, there is no minimum reciprocity. No
US company can be persecuted for its corrupt
 commercial practices, or industrial espionage
 (facilitated by CIA or NSA hearings) in Europe.

US law, a parody of legal universalism

Now Paris and Brussels, in the face of the worst and
most recent sanctions against Russia, but in reality
against German and French companies, plead for a
"nonextraterritoriality of American law", or they may
venture international lawsuits, at an ''international''
court... A little late, after years, in which European
leaders accepted and bent to the legal arrogance
of their Protective Superpower.

It's no longer even fair to speak of "extraterritoriality".
 No:-  here is the new "global universal law", a parody
of the Roman law, which the United States imposes
 on the whole world because they are the Empire of
the Good, while the rest of the world is now divided
between "corrupt" "terrorists" and "rogue states".

Berlin, Paris, and Brussels (Rome has no say) have
accepted this "universality" without reciprocity, all
the unilateral acts, have paid the billionaires fines,
 participating in punitive dispatches against the
 ''insubordinates'' - with the Universal US Law.

 In short, they all accepted "American legal philosophy"
 as a universal value, if we can call the law of the West
 and guns applied to the planet, a 'value'. And now they
 discover - like the German Foreign Ministry - that "the
United States uses sanctions as a tool to serve the
interests of the US industry"? Or, as a Parisian
parliamentary commission denounces, a "use
 of the law to serve the aims of an economic
 and political imperative in order to achieve
strategic advantages"?

The German economy, addicted to exports

You don't know whether to cry or to laugh, in the face of
 this laziness, lowliness and lack of European leadership.
This leadership now finds that she has been taken to be
lassoed as a castrated calf, while she believed she was
 an ally. And with well-tied hocks, the German calf in fact,
cannot take retaliatiory measures, even commercially,
of any kind, nor make them vote for "her" EU:- because
unanimity is needed, and having allowed into her "EU"
 Poland, the Baltic States and Sweden - all in a full anti-
Russian paroxysm, wanting to regulate old hates with
Moscow and filled with weapons from the Pentagon -
unanimity is a thing that one can only dream of...

On the other hand, what sanctions do you want to oppose,
when you have developed a German economy that's based
 for 50% of its GDP, on exports - in short, it depends largely
on exports to the USA, which is still the largest global
 consumer. You are in their hands --- which can cause
 you a bad depression, if they no longer
buy your BMWs.

Checkmate. Inflicted by the Americans, who are not
particularly sagacious and smart chess champions.

 Our so-called leaders are players even more sluggish
 than Trump, more dumb than the fanatic warmongers
 at the Congress. It's almost incredible. Humiliating
 and shameful.

Can they do worse? Sure they can. The Pentagon is about
 to provide heavy weaponry, and anti-tank missiles to the
Kiev government; wants to "help" Proschenko recapture
 the Donbass, reopening warfare: it has already allocated
 $ 410 million to modernize the Ukrainian arms industry
 (tripling it from a year before), and spent 40 million in
commando training. In short the US wants war in
 Europe. Almost near the borders of Germany.

"Bringing more weapons into an area that is already packed
with weapons and ammunitions is a nightmare for mediators
in Germany and France --- and now it is impossible to get a
permanent ceasefire..." Deutschlandfunk complained.

All in all, but remembering that those "mediators of France
and Germany" who would have to gain a ceasefire along
 the Donbass frontline, have instead, until now - for sure
 following orders by their governments - been shaking
hands in shame, with the Kiev rightwing militias.

 The "OSCE observers" have never observed their
 illegal violations. Merkel has always pretended
 to blame Putin - against whom, she has also
applied the well-known sanctions.

Now, the only thing that the so-called European leaders
should do is recognize the US in Ukraine as the enemy,
and Moscow as their friend. To denounce, to prevent
by all means, the rearming of the coup regime now
on the ropes. They will not, of course. What will
happen, will happen: unless they learn quickly
from what the US did in Syria.

And they do not even have to look for plotter sites or
 read reports by some counter-intelligence agency...

Just read through the New York Times article of
August 2nd: Under Trump, a Hollowed-Out Force
 in Syria Quickly Lost C.I.A. Backing,

where you can read:

"It was the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, who recommended
 to President Trump the closure of the four-year operation
to arm Syrian rebels."

"Critics in the Congress [very few - Note of the author] have
 denounced for years, the costs and the reports that the
armaments provided by the CIA were in the hands of
rebels linked to Al Qaeda."

"In 2012, David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, was the first
 to propose an underground program to arm the rebels. A
presidential decree authorizing the CIA to arm small
rebel groups [was signed by Obama]. John Brennan,
Obama's last-named CIA director, has remained a
vigorous defender of the deal. "

A giant, criminal operation, failed and closed. Heavy
armaments "finished in Al Qaeda's hands", which
was probably the true purpose of the project,
and the introduction into Syria of at least
20,000 trained guerrillas, who became
the nerve centre of ISIS.

It cost at least a billion dollars, maybe four (but what
does it matter? The FED prints them and the world
accepts them in payment). Its true cost, was the
hundreds of thousands of killed in Syria and the
millions of refugees in neighbouring countries.

Now the Pentagon wants to repeat the operation, and
openly, in Ukraine. Without obviously asking for an
opinion from the "European allies", blaming their
"nightmares".

 Because they do not oppose it. After the next four years,
 the New York Times will explain to us that the operation
was "wrong", confirming the high morality of the Super-
power. About which Churchill, let's remember, said:

"Occasionally, our American friends experience
the need to wash their conscience in a bidet.
The fact is that, later, they make us drink
the water. "

 
*********

Original article by Maurizio Blondet:

http://www.maurizioblondet.it/congresso-
usa-dato-scacco-matto-alleuropa-merkel/

Translation by Costantino Ceoldo
 - Pravdafreelance


_______________________________________________


It’s Not Only Possible
for UN to Boycott Israel
 – It’s Entirely Necessary
Saturday July 22nd, at 7:13am

FNA - Following the violence on Friday, Jewish Voice
for Peace released a statement outlining the ongoing
battle for control of and access to the sacred site:

 The imposition of metal detectors there is seen as an
 imposition of Israel’s power over the holy site. Israel
has occupied the area since 1967, and there is a
growing movement by right-wing Israeli activists
 and officials to take over the site more fully.
The Al-Aqsa Mosque is a central holy site
for Muslims around the world, and the
 issue of freedom of religion and
access to the site is of deep
concern to many.

It’s the latest example of the Israeli authorities using Israeli-
Palestinian violence and tensions as a means of furthering
their control over important sites in occupied Palestinian
territory and normalizing heightened apartheid measures
by Israeli forces targeting Palestinians. The United Nations
might have expressed concerns on the current situation,
but that’s not enough. The world body should denounce
 the installation of metal detectors, turnstiles, and
additional security cameras in the compound. It
 should also condemn Israel for killing Palestinian
 protesters in broad daylight and in great
violation of the UN Charter.

True, the US State Department’s annual terror report has
just offered a surprising amount of criticism of Israel,
 uncharacteristic for the Trump administration, which
 has made a point of being outspokenly favorable
 toward the Israeli regime from day one. But
 criticism is not enough. The Israeli regime's
 policy toward the Palestinians, as well as
the unconditional support it gets from
Washington, are in no small part
driving the violence in the
Holy Land.

The United Nations, therefore, is required to step in
 and identify and condemn the continued drivers of
violence. The world body should take action over
Tel Aviv’s illegal settlement expansion within the
occupied West Bank, its overly aggressive military
tactics, and the growing lack of hope, in achieving
Palestinian rights for freedom & self-determination.

All of these are long-standing criticisms toward Israel,
but are rarely articulated by the UN, let alone Trump’s
administration, which has been pushing for a US
crackdown on the Palestinians, as a way to
show support for Israel. Quite the contrary:

A new bill is getting increasing bipartisan support at
the US Senate. Known as the “Israel Anti-Boycott Act,”
 the bill starts as a condemnation of the United Nations
 for its criticisms of Israeli policy, but quickly veers into
matters of domestic US policy, criminalizing any US
citizen “engaged in interstate or foreign commerce”
holding any beliefs in support of a boycott of Israel.

This bill, threatening huge fines and decades of prison
 time, for ideological support of the justifiable boycott,
 is overtly criminalizing political thought, and is a huge
 infringement on freedom of speech. The House version
 of the bill, which is not so far along, also has many co-
sponsors, again across both parties. So far not a single
 US lawmaker has publicly gone on record as opposing
 the bill, which is being loudly endorsed by AIPAC.


So -- no matter what the UN thinks about the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: International
Law, International Humanitarian Law, and the UN
 Charter all protect a Palestinian right to freedom
 and self-determination. They also protect all UN
 member states’ right to engage in boycotts
against the usurper regime of Israel.

In fact, boycotting Israel could be one of the brightest
stars in the UN’s Charter. It is a form of lawful and
collective action --- that allows member states to
make their voices heard, when the long-suffering
people of Palestine need it the most. For precisely
this reason, the General Assembly should hold that
the UN Charter protects the right to boycott Israel.

 It’s a landmark decision to protest at occupied
Palestine’s persistent racial inequality and the
 segregation. In ringing language, the General
 Assembly can hold that the boycotters’ exercise
 of their rights to change an apartheid order that
 has consistently treated Palestinians as second-
class citizens, rests on the highest rung of the
hierarchy of UN values.

This is a proud UN legacy. At a time when Israel continues
 to kill Palestinians for wanting to pray in their place of
worship, the right to boycott Israel can no longer be
allowed to go under assault. No member state,
including the US, should be allowed to stamp
 out boycotts and divestment campaigns
 aimed at Israel. The UN can and should
immediately pass a resolution that
supports the BDS movement and
prohibits member countries from
 doing business with Israel.

Of course, the work towards this goal will be long and hard.
The international civil society must not only be convinced
 that it’s necessary, but also confident that it’s possible,
 to come up with a global move that will rally most of
the UN member states behind the Palestinians
 and their rightful cause.


__________________________________________________


Malorossiya: Information War
 Ploy --- or Real Revolution?
July 18th, 2017
By Eduard Popov
 translated by Jafe Arnold -

On July 18th in Donetsk, leader of the Donetsk
People’s Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko,
proclaimed the founding of a new state --
Malorossiya ("Little Russia") -- to replace
Ukraine ---- which was declared to have
finally “demonstrated its bankruptcy.”

According to Zakharchenko, the establishment of a
new, independent state in the likes of Malorossiya,
 could help stop the conflict in Donbass.

As DPR’s Minister of Revenues & Duties,
Alexander Timofeev, has stated that the
proclaimed Malorossiya will be a federal
state, featuring broad autonomy, with
its capital in Donetsk, and the flag of
 Bogdan Khmelnitsky, its state flag.

According to Timofeev, a constitution will be adopted
by popular referendum. The minister also emphasized
that the creation of Malorossiya, does not contradict
 the Minsk Agreements.

The Constitutional Act on the Establishment of
Malorossiya declares that the established state
will maintain a non-aligned status --- but it will
continue to pursue its accession to the Union
State of Russia & Belorussia. The document
 also enumerates the
new state's social
policy
in considerable detail, emphasizing
struggling against oligarchy, developing
people’s control in the economy, and
establishing state concerns, etc.

The founding document also declares that elements
of direct democracy will be introduced, alongside
criminal liability for propagandizing the ideas of
Ukrainian Nazism and its collaborators
(OUN-UPA, etc.).

To say the least --- this news is like a thunder bolt
from a clear sky. In just a matter of hours since the
declaration was made in Donetsk the first criticisms
 of the initiative, have already surfaced. Curiously, or
 perhaps, rather, tellingly, the authorities of Lugansk

 People’s Republic have first and foremost criticized
the declaration. For instance, Chair of the People’s
 Council of the LPR, Vladimir Degtyarenko, claimed:

 “Lugansk People’s Republic did not sent its official
delegates to Donetsk to participate in the meeting
of representatives of Ukraine’s regions. Moreover,
we weren't even aware of the intention to hold this
event and this issue was not agreed upon with us.”

 Degtyarenko also stressed that “at the moment, the
feasibility of such a step is questionable” insofar as
 “such decisions can only be made upon taking into
 account the opinion of the people. Moreover, we
are currently observing the Minsk Agreements,
to which, there is no alternative.”

The LPR’s envoy to the Minsk negotiations, Vladislav
Deynego, also claims that the establishment of the
new state of Malorossiya is untimely. Deynego was
supported in his statement by a Donetsk colleague,
 the speaker of the People’s Council of the DPR and
 representative of the republic to the Minsk group,
Denis Pushilin. The latter complained... that the
People’s Council of the DPR did not participate
 in the initiative’s deliberation.

The criticism voiced of the Malorossiya project in
 the DPR & LPR speaks to the peoples’ republics’
 different approaches and reflects an ideological
& political struggle within the ruling institutions
 of the DPR and LPR.

Russia’s special envoy to the Minsk talks, Boris Gryzlov,
has suggested that the project is in itself inconsistent
 with the Minsk Agreements. On the other hand, in
Grzylov's opinion, everything is logical, if this
project is considered as an element of an
information war. To build on Gryzlov’s
assessment, allow us to recall, that
Ukraine is constantly on the attack,
demanding Minsk 2 be abandoned,
the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone
be ended, and martial law be
imposed instead.

 Zakharchenko’s announcement can quite logically
 be understood as an element of information war,
 in this regard.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian side’s reaction, has been as
expected. Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, has
promised that Kiev will re-assert control over Donbass
& Crimea and stressed that “the ‘Novorossiya project’
is buried." Poroshenko hasn't clarified why he chose
 this term, and not “Malorossiya” as the new project
has been christened.

As for the founding congress itself and its participants’
plans, there are still more questions than answers. We
can however, direct our attention to a detail: delegates
from different regions of the former Ukraine attended
the founding congress of Malorossiya and expressed
hope that the proclaimed federal state with a centre
 in Donetsk, will help to save Russian lands from the
criminal Kiev regime. While there's still little detailed
 information as to the composition of the participating
 assembly, it is obvious that the event had its eyes on
 the numerous political emigrants in Russia, or rather
Moscow, who fled after the coup d’etat in Kiev. These
political exiles continue to secretly maintain contacts
 with their colleagues and compatriots, and are well-
informed as to the mood within different sections of
 the Ukrainian population, including among security
 structures and political circles.

Let us also recall that political emigrants #1 and #2,
the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych & ex-Prime
 Minister, Nikolay Azarov, have been increasingly
politically active as of late, especially the latter.

Just several days ago, Azarov stated that he expects
 to return to his homeland soon. It would be logical to
 assume that the two events are interrelated. While
 it is unknown, whether Azarov was present at the
congress in Donetsk (he probably was not), even
 if Azarov & Zakharchenko are in different parties,
 they share the same strategic goal - “restarting”
 the state of Ukraine, on new ideological and
political principles, & even with a new name.

I happen to agree with Boris Gryzlov. Today’s announcement
 out of Donetsk undoubtedly belongs to the information war
context. The proclamation also certainly goes beyond the
Minsk Agreements, but then again, so does daily shelling
of Donbass cities by Ukrainian artillery & Kiev’s attempts
 to overturn & distort implementation of the agreements’
 provisions.

The Donetsk People’s Republic, its leader, Alexander
Zakharchenko (the only authoritative politician in
Donbass), and his supporters, are merely turning
 the tables on Ukraine. Zakharchenko is counter-
ing the bombardment of Donbass cities with not
only a tough, defensive response, but with
 threatening to liquidate the pseudo-Nazi,
pseudo-oligarchical state of Ukraine
altogether, and build a new state
 in its place.

Indeed, a lot of combustible material has accumulated
in Ukraine’s regions, and all that is left, is providing a
burning match. Therefore, an information war project
-- could easily turn into a military and political reality.

Therefore, I propose that the plans to establish
 “Malorossiya”, be taken in all seriousness.

(Source - Fort Russ) 

_______________________________________


International relations:
Accountability for
 criminal actions
15.07.2017
 
The law is perfectly clear and very explicitly and expressly
 laid out in the document called the United Nations Charter,
 which establishes clear rules as to the rights and duties of
 nations governing cases of international conflict. Therefore
 under these rules, nations should be held accountable for
their actions. So why aren't they?

However absurd the notion that I can gang up with my more
powerful neighbours and attack a property and its inhabitants
 because I covet their fertile land, using wanton force to force
them off, killing some in the process, including many innocent
 women and children, rendering their water supply undrinkable
"to break their backs" and destroying their energy producing
 systems so they could not fight back, yet this is exactly what
happened when the West turned on Saddam Hussein in Iraq
 and Muammar al-Gaddhafi in Libya. And it is what is
 happening today, in Syria.

This is 2017. We do not have a civilized,
enforceable international legal system

In any civilized state of law, or in any civilized legal system
 where accountability for infractions existed, the perpetrators
 would be summarily rounded up, arrested, dragged before a
court and punished, in these cases with a penalty incurring
 many consecutive life sentences. But Tony Blair is walking
 free, George W. Bush is walking free, Barack Obama is
walking free, Nicolas Sarkozy is walking free, David
 Cameron is walking free, Bill Clinton is walking
 free, Hillary Clinton is walking free, as are all
 their political and military advisors, in both
 campaigns. They are carrying on with
 their lives, as if nothing happened.
 
They used military equipment against civilian structures,
occasioning the murder of civilians & military units alike,
occasioning the grevious & actual bodily harm of civilians
 who had nothing to do with the conflict, they used military
equipment to attack life-bearing services, such as water
supplies and the electricity grid. In the case of Iraq they
strafed fields of cereals with military jets, to burn food,
they left the theatre of conflict contaminated after the
conflict had ended.

In scenarios where the war is legitimate and backed by the
 UN Security Council (not the case in Iraq) and where UNSC
Resolutions were followed (not the case with UNSC 1970
 and 1973 (2011) in Libya), these are war crimes. In cases
where the war is illegal and the Resolutions have been
breached, these are humanitarian outrages which the
 human history book cannot and must not, overlook.

Iraq was a stable country, where most of the population lived
in peace, had jobs, went about their daily business and placed
bread on the table at the end of the day. The same is true for
Libya, only more so, because it was an African country with
Africa's highest Human Development Index, prior to NATO's
murderous escapade. In both countries, advanced social
welfare systems provided for the
population's needs,
 in general
.

Enter frontstage the West and the finger of Satan

Enter frontstage (right) the West, championed in Iraq by the
United States of America and the Anglo-Saxon Syndicate
 (ASS, the UK and its former penal colony, Australia,) and
 championed in Libya, by France, the UK and US (FUKUS
Axis). Immediate result: thousands of people murdered
in callous & criminally negligent attacks, destabilizing
 the State to the point where it collapsed. As usual,
they interfered with the social structure of countries
touched by this hand of Satan, ignoring the Sunni in
 Iraq & thus giving rise to Islamic State, and in Libya,
 destroying the Jamahiriya system, that was a finely
 tuned network to guarantee peace and stability in a
tribal society, giving rise to total chaos & the entry
of IS into the gateway to Europe, giving rise to a
horrific refugee crisis, in which, thousands
more people have died.

In Iraq, eleven million people are in need of humanitarian
 assistance. 3.4 million are internally displaced, 700,000
 of these in Mosul alone. Numerous ethnic groups which
lived in harmony under Saddam Hussein, have been
murdered, forced into slavery, or relegated to the
status of sexual slaves (the Yazidi for example).

 In Libya -- now -- nearly 20% of the population
needs urgent humanitarian assistance, while
249,000, are internally displaced. These are
the statistics of the USA and UK, and not of
Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Gaddhafi.

And now Syria...

And now Syria. Instead of helping the legitimate Syrian
 Government to form a
peace & reconciliation process,
what did the West do? It took sides & interfered in an
 internal conflict -- armed, aided, abetted and trained
violent terrorist groups, and instigated them to take
 up arms against the State, murdering police officers,
 murdering emergency services personnel, murdering
 and raping nuns, murdering and sexually assaulting
 children --- raping little girls, before and after they
were beheaded and after they were forced to
watch their parents being executed.

And for those who draw the time line at 2011 when the
crisis began and claim they are supporting poor down-
trodden civilians against a dictator, let us remember
that most Syrians want al-Assad to remain as their
President. Over 70 per cent of them.

So for those who wish to praise the West for siding with
 terrorists, let us draw the time line in 1956, when a CIA
plot aimed to topple the Syrian government. In 1983, a
CIA document mentioned a plan to destroy Syria --- to
enable a pipeline to be built and managed by pro-
Western forces.

 In 1986, a CIA plan was drawn up --- to launch a sectarian war
between Sunni & Shia in Syria, using the Muslim Brotherhood
 to further this aim (a terrorist group outlawed in Syria).

 In 2005, al-Assad was warned that the West was plotting
regime change. In 2006, it was confirmed in a State Dept
 cable which discussed several strategies to achieve this.

Between 2005 and 2007 the United States of America actively
 supported anti-Assad opposition groups. In 2009 the USA and
 its chief poodle the UK funded a satellite channel to broadcast
 anti-Assad propaganda. In 2009 a Saudi plan to remove al-Assad
 and make Syria a Sunni country, was mentioned by the US State
department, at the same time that the same department revealed
 that its ally, Saudi Arabia, was the number one source of funding
terrorism worldwide. Yet the West continued & continues to do
business with Saudi Arabia, engaging in handshakes, smiles,
back-patting and sumptuous meals (while complaining in
private that the Saudis are a load of pot-bellied, lazy,
arrogant, good-for-nothings).

 In 2011 special operations forces from the US, UK and Turkey
 were operating in Syria, before supplying terrorists with
weapons and training them.

If this is not Satanic, I do not know what is. It is the
 responsibility of the people of the USA, its lapdog
 the UK, in turn, its colonial bedboy, Australia, and
 today, France --- to end these murderous policies
via the legitimate political processes in place,
through deselection of candidates, through
the monitoring of votes, through bringing
international policy onto their national
election stage, & through questioning
 the constitutional legitimacy of NATO.

Surely a pan-national institution cannot dictate
the foreign policies of member states? Then...
why does it, and why does it make budgetary
demands (2 per cent of GDP) in the process?

by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

(Source - Pravda.Ru)

Twitter: @TimothyBHinchey

timothy.hinchey@gmail.com

 ______________________________




NO WATER FOR DONBASS: West Shrugs as
Ukraine's
Poroshenko Commits ISIS-Style
War Crime: Russia Insider





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 – 'president' Poroshenko and the
Verkhovna Rada – 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 instead
of "Banderites with a European face";

- as a result of the neo-Nazi coup, a civil war of all
against all will begin in the country and cause
its subsequent disintegration;

- 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 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)

__________________________________________________


The West Refuses To Face Up
 To This Perverse Reality

Empowering the Saudi regime is the root cause
of Islamist terrorism, says David Lowry

During his press conference with Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas in Jerusalem last Tuesday,
 US President Donald Trump offered these words to
 the people of Manchester:

 “I extend my deepest condolences to those so terribly
 injured in this terrorist attack, and to the many killed,
and the families — so many families — of the victims.

“We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the
 United Kingdom. So many young, beautiful, innocent
people living and enjoying their lives, murdered by
evil losers in life.

“The terrorists and extremists, and those who give them
 aid and comfort, must be driven out from our society
 forever. This wicked ideology must be obliterated —
and I mean completely obliterated — and innocent
life must be protected.”

3 days earlier, in Saudi Arabia’s capital city Riyadh,
Trump signed off on a $110 billion sale of military
 equipment to Saudi Arabia - effective immediately
 - which could expand to $350 billion over 10 years.

 The deal includes tanks, combat ships, missile
defence systems, radar and communications,
and cyber-security technology.

On the same day Trump, without any apparent irony,
jointly established with the Saudis a new Global
Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology.

He told political leaders at the Arab Islamic American
Summit: “This groundbreaking new centre represents
 a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries
 must take the lead in combating radicalisation,
 and I want to express our gratitude to King
 Salman for this strong demonstration
of leadership.”

What is the Saudi record, in combating extremism?

In October 2014, Britain’s Major-General Jonathan Shaw
(who retired as assistant chief of defence staff in 2012)
 told the Daily Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia
 were “primarily responsible for the rise of the
extremist Islam that inspires [Isis] terrorists.”

The newspaper added that “the two Gulf states have
 spent billions of dollars on promoting a militant and
proselytising interpretation of their faith derived from
 Abdul Wahhab, an 18th-century scholar, & based on
the Salaf, or the original followers of the Prophet.”

General Shaw emphasised: “This is a time bomb that,
under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is
igniting under the world, really. And it is funded
by Saudi and Qatari money, and that must stop.”

He forcefully added that the UK and US air campaign
 against Isis would not “stop the support of people
in Qatar & Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity,”
stressing, “it’s missing the point.”

Nearly a year later, Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz,
Saudi ambassador in London, disingenuously wrote in
 the Daily Telegraph: “Saudi Arabia has also had to
 contend with disingenuous allegations concerning
 the kingdom’s role in the war against terrorist
groups such as so-called [Isis] and al-Qaida.

“The fact is that no nation is more invested in the struggle
against extremism, than the kingdom, which remains
the primary target of such organisations, even more
so than Western nations.”

This naivety was also the line taken by foreign office minister
Tobias Elwood, in a written answer to veteran Labour back-
bench MP Paul Flynn in September 2015, when he asserted:

“We work closely with countries in the Gulf, including Saudi
Arabia, to counter the threat from terrorists and extremists
 across the region.

“Saudi Arabia is a key partner on a broad range of counter
terrorism questions. The Saudi government is acutely aware
of the threat from terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and [Isis]
 to their own and global security, and have been at the fore-
front of efforts to combat them.

“Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive set of laws in place to
prevent terrorist financing, which we assess that it
vigorously enforces.”

Saudi Arabia is a huge purchaser of British weapons, as
well as US military hardware, in multi-billion pound deals.

Is this the reason ministers refuse to face up to the perverse
reality of the Saudi support for terrorism, both against Iran-
backed Shia muslims in Syria and Iraq, over the past
 decade, and innocent concert-goers in Manchester
this week, when murderously attacked by an Isis-
supporting suicide bomber, whose very ideology
is exported from, and funded by, the Saudis?

Dr David Lowry is a senior research fellow for
the Institute for Resource and Security Studies.

(This article appeared originally
 in the Morning Star)


_____________________________________________


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 and Co-operation in Europe,
which was set up under Chapter VIII 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.

Do not be misled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of Nato.
It is not the policies he is condemning. He himself wants
more nuclear weapons in the world, though one wonders
if he can comprehend the horror of what happened when
the US dropped nuclear bombs.

And to her shame, Theresa May has also said she would
press the nuclear button and so has shadow defence
 secretary Nia Griffith.

Trump just wants more money for war as we saw when he
 announced a $54 billion increase to the military budget —
while thousands in the US live below the poverty line.

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 tomorrow in Brussels and
 activists will be holding a “counter-summit” starting
 today, 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)


__________________________________
__________________________________


We're 30 minutes away
 from Armageddon.
Coming soon - thanks America.






US Navy Prepares Decapitating
 Attack Against Russia
Alex Gorka
27.03.2017

The US preemptive nuclear strike capability has significantly
grown. The strategic nuclear forces modernization program
 has implemented new revolutionary technologies to vastly
 increase the targeting capability of the US submarine-
launched ballistic missile (SLBM) arsenal.

The Bulletin of American Scientists reports that as a result of
 improvements in the killing power of US SLBMs, they carry
 more than three times the number of warheads needed to
 destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles.

Since only part of the W76 force would be needed to
eliminate Russia’s silo-based ICBMs, the US will be
left with a substantial number of higher-yield war-
heads, that could be used for other missions.

The increase in the lethality comes from the Mk4A «super-
fuze» device that since 2009 has been incorporated into
 the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead, as part of a decade-
long life-extension program.

The super-fuze capability is now operational on all nuclear
 warheads deployed on the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile
 submarines. The new fuze has also been installed on British
 SLBMs.

It provides for an adjustable height-of-burst as it arrives. The
 fuze is designed to destroy fixed hard targets by detonating
above and around a target, in a much more effective way.
Warheads that would otherwise overfly a target and land too
far away will now, because of the new fuzing system, detonate
above the target. Explosions that occur near and above the
 ground over a target can be lethal to it. This above-target area
 is known as a «lethal volume»; the detonation of a warhead of
 appropriate yield in this volume, will result in the destruction
 of the target. The result of this fuzing scheme is a significant
increase in the probability that a warhead will explode close
 enough to destroy the target, even though the accuracy of
the missile-warhead system has itself not improved. Thus,
an enhanced fuze would allow the United States to reduce
 the number of warheads on its ballistic missile submarines,
but increase the targeting effectiveness of the fleet.

It’s worth mentioning, that, in addition to hundreds of
W76-1/Mk4A warheads with a 100kiloton warhead that
have a very high probability of destroying fixed silos,
Navy submarines also carry the 455kiloton W88 Mk-5
 that can destroy extremely hard and deeply buried
targets, such as military command centres.

According to Hans Kristiansen, the director of the Nuclear
Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists,
«As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much
more capable than it was previously, against hardened
targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago,
only about 20% of US submarine warheads had
 hard-target kill capability; today they all do».

It should be noted that the US has always enjoyed significant
 advantage in sea-based nuclear forces. Together, the Ohio-
class submarines carry approximately 60% of US strategic
 nuclear warheads. The Navy has been constantly upgrading
 its Trident missiles. Additionally, a new submarine, the
 SSBN(X), which will replace the Ohio-class ballistic missile
 submarines, is undergoing development and is expected to
 cost about $140 billion to develop, according to the Defense
 Department.

Under the circumstances, Russia has the right to invoke
 Article VIII of the New START treaty, which provides that in
 those cases in which one of the Parties determines that its
 actions may lead to an ambiguous situation, that Party is
to take measures to ensure the viability and effectiveness
of this Treaty and to enhance confidence, openness, and
predictability concerning the reduction and limitation of
 strategic offensive arms. Such measures may include,
among other things, providing information in advance
 on activities of that Party associated with deployment
 or increased readiness of strategic offensive arms to
 preclude the possibility of misinterpretation of its
actions by the other Party. This information is to
 be provided through diplomatic or other channels.

The enhanced capability could be used only against land-
based targets, leaving SSBNs immune, at least those
on patrol. Train-based systems have a good chance
 to survive and strike back. The super fuze does not
eliminate the capability to deliver a retaliatory strike.
 What really matters is the fact that the US does not
view the strategic potential as a deterrent but rather
 as a means to deliver the first strike: reducing the
 opponent’s capability to respond.

The background also matters. While blaming Russia for
starting an arms race, the US beefs up its nuclear potential.
The US Air Force is modernizing the Minuteman-III missiles,
 replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance
 systems, and other components, so that they can remain
 in the US' force through 2030. The service released a new
ICBM solicitation last July. It plans to build a new weapons
 system to replace the long-serving Minuteman, under a
program called the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
 (GBSD). The US Defense Department plans to buy 642
GBSD missiles for roughly $66.4 million each to support
 a deployed force of 400 weapons and to budget at least
$1.25 billion, annually, from 2036 to 2040. The goal is
to deliver the first batch of new missiles by 2029.

In 2023, the USAF will receive the B61 Mod 12 guided, stand-
off nuclear gravity bomb to replace all existing gravity bombs
 in the arsenal. The weapon with earth-penetrating capability
 and selectable yield from 50 kilotons to 0.3 kilotons, will be
 carried by both strategic and tactical stealth aircraft. The
planned deployment foresees that other NATO members
 would use their aircraft as delivery means in violation of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 that forbids
non-nuclear states from receiving nuclear weapons.

In the late 2020s and through the 2030s the Air Force will
 begin receiving the first of 100 new B-21 strategic stealth
 bombers.

The Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile program
is to develop a weapon that can penetrate and survive
integrated air defense systems and prosecute strategic
targets. Both conventional and nuclear versions of the
weapon are required to reach initial operational
capability (IOC) before the retirement of their
respective ALCM versions, around 2030.

According to the plans, the LRSO will replace the Air-
Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) program with 1,000
to 1,100 cruise missiles, representing the US Air
Force’s standoff nuclear delivery capability.

The US implements an ambitious program of putting weapons
 in space. It includes the concept of «Rods of God» – secret
 space weapons deployed on orbital kinetic weapon platform
 that could achieve a velocity of about 11 km/s (around 36,000
 feet per second). The ground-based BMD systems, the
X-37B spacecraft and Geosynchronous Space Situational
Awareness Program (GSSAP) platforms, could be
 repurposed into instruments of war in space.

The US goals have been strictly defined. According to White
 House spokesman Sean Spicer, what the president «was
very clear on, is that the US will not yield its supremacy
 in this area to anybody. That's what he made very
 clear in there. And that, if other countries have
nuclear capabilities, it will always be the US that
 has the supremacy and commitment to this».

President Donald Trump is critical toward the New START
 Treaty, calling it «a one-sided deal. «Just another bad deal
 that the country made, whether it's START, whether it's
the Iran deal ... We're going to start making good
deals», he stated.

Expanding the US arsenal with new or additional nuclear
weapons would cost billions at the time the national debt
is nearing $20 trillion, while the New START allows the US
 to keep enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet
 several times over. Without the New START and other
arms control agreements, like the INF Treaty, the US
will be compelled to waste enormous military and
financial resources on a nuclear arms race.

The US is doing its best to gain supremacy in nuclear
 weapons. This policy may lead to total disintegration
of the existing framework of treaties and regimes,
followed by resumption of an arms race with
 dire consequences for the US itself.

With all the efforts on the way, there is little doubt
about Russia’s ability to survive a first nuclear
 strike, and respond in kind.

Without violating the New START, the upgrade of the
 W76 warheads undermines future efforts to negotiate
a New START treaty.

As history teaches, an arms race will never make anybody
 victorious. Nobody gains, everybody loses. It took a series
of risky crises, like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and
several cycles of an extremely costly arms race to realize
 how dangerous the nuclear threat is. The history of arms
 control reveals the wisdom of Soviet (Russian) and US
 leaders finding ways to cap their arsenals, even in the
heat of the Cold War. Now all the efforts applied in the
 past, may go down the drain, as the US is going back
 to the once tried policy of seeking nuclear dominance.
 Now it starts again, at a time that the whole system
of arms control, is on the brink of collapse.The tide
 must be turned. Nuclear arms control treaties
 should have become a top priority of the
 bilateral relationship.

(source - Strategic Culture.org)

_____________________________



Nuclear War - Vows Broken


Jonathan Marshall is author of many recent articles
on arms issues, including “How World War III Could
Start,” “NATO’s ProvocativeAnti-Russian Moves,”
“Escalations in a New Cold War,” “Ticking Closer to
Midnight,” and “Turkey’s Nukes: A Sum of All Fears.”


A petition by Ploughshares Fund says:

“President Trump could launch 140
warheads in the time it takes to write
 140 characters. The grave difference
 is: a tweet can be deleted, but the
devastation of a nuclear warhead
 can never be undone.”

Experts estimate that about 1,000 US nuclear
warheads are currently set to launch within
 minutes of a presidential order to vaporize
 an enemy.

 As Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione
observes, “Each is many times the size of the
bombs we dropped on Japan. Together, they
can detonate... the equivalent of 22,000

Hiroshima’s on cities all over the planet.
In just 30 minutes, they could destroy
all
that human civilization has created

over the millennia.”

Today, many, if not most, nuclear experts
 agree that keeping nuclear weapons on
hair-trigger alert, greatly degrades the
 security of Russia & the US, by raising
 the chance of leaders on either side
 ordering a missile launch on the basis
 of accidents or false warnings, after
 only a few minutes of hasty
consideration.

 Surely deciding the fate of human civilization
 deserves a little more time than that.

In a talk last year at Stanford University, former
Secretary of Defense William Perry said the US
 had received at least three false alarms of a
Soviet nuclear attack, and “we know of at
least 2 (false alarms) in the Soviet Union.”
 He thanked “good luck” for avoiding the
destruction of humankind in a nuclear war.

The US nuclear warning systems have been
accidentally tripped by a defective computer
 chip and computer confusion of a war game
 with the real thing. Soviet nuclear forces
went on high alert when a glint of sunlight
 confused an early-warning satellite, and
when radar systems identified a Norwegian
 weather rocket as an incoming U.S. missile.

Concern over the risk of accidental nuclear
 annihilation has prompted creation of detailed
 blueprints for transitioning U.S. and Russian
nuclear forces to lower alert levels, several
resolutions by the U.N. General Assembly,
and bipartisan calls at home for action.

Unnecessary Vestige

During his 2000 run for the presidency, George
 W. Bush said, “the US should remove as many
weapons as possible from high-alert,
hair-
trigger status: another unnecessary
vestige
of Cold War confrontation. Preparation
for
a quick launch — within minutes after

warning of an attack — was the rule
 during the era of superpower rivalry.
 But today, for two nations at peace,
keeping so many weapons on high
 alert may create unacceptable risks
 of accidental or unauthorized launch.”

Eight years later, presidential candidate Obama
 declared, “Keeping nuclear weapons ready to
 launch on a moment’s notice, is a dangerous
 relic of the Cold War. Such policies increase
 the risk of catastrophic accidents, or
miscalculation. I believe that we must
 address this dangerous situation —
something President Bush vowed
to do when he campaigned
for
president back in 2000, but

 did not do once in office.”

Unfortunately, President Obama also did
 nothing once in office, & the downward
 spiral of his relations with Russia did
 nothing to enlighten the Kremlin’s
own
attitudes on the issue, either.


According to Princeton University expert Bruce
 Blair, Russian leaders now fear that US weapons
 based in Eastern Europe could reach Moscow in
 a matter of minutes, wiping out “the Kremlin in
 a flash without warning, along with key Russian
 installations in its nuclear command, control,
communications and early warning network.”

As a result, Blair reported, Russia has actually
“shortened the launch time from what it was
 during the Cold War,” to just four minutes.

 “Today, top military command posts in the
Moscow area can bypass the entire human
chain of command & directly fire by remote
 control, rockets in silos and on trucks, as
far
away as Siberia, in only 20 seconds. 
This
situation is a mistaken launch
waiting
to happen.”


President Trump has said (or tweeted)
nought to show that he appreciates
the
problem. The good news is, his nominee

 as Secretary of Defense, General James
Mattis, offered cogent remarks last year
to a
Senate Armed Services Committee,

 about revamping US nuclear forces to
 “reduce the false alarm danger.” Former
 Secretary Perry has also confirmed that
 Mattis is “a very serious thinker” on
 nuclear issues.

Speaking last year, Retired Gen. Eugene Habiger,
the former Commander in Chief of U.S. Strategic
Command, said, “We need to bring the alert
status down of our ICBMs... It’s one of those
 things where the services are not gonna do
 anything, until the Big Kahuna says, ‘Take
 your missiles off alert,’ and then by golly
within hours, the missiles and subs
will be off alert.”

The question now, is whether President 
Donald Trump's much-vaunted volatility
means we must all
pray for deliverance.


[For more on this, see Consortiumnews.com’s
 “Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears.”]

consortiumnews.com

(source - Strategic Culture Foundation)


__________________________________________


New York Times Continues
Lying About Ukraine
by Eric Zuesse
 02/01/2017

The New York Times’s hiding — for nearly three years
after this massively important historical event — the
U.S.-imposed bloody coup that occurred in Ukraine
during February 2014, makes the Times’s hiding of
it
from the public, become by now no longer merely
egregious ‘news’-reporting, but finally lying about
history: it’s an egregious lie about a major event of
recent world history — a worse lie as each year
passes without the Times’s acknowledgment that
they'd been hiding it from their readers, all along;
hiding news, until it became history — a lie which
 is harder to extricate themselves from as each year
passes and as this event becomes more and more
 important, because it accumulates more and more
consequences, all of which are bad.

So: when will the NYT finally come out publicly and
acknowledge that the coup existed --- that it was a
 ''coup'', and no ‘revolution’ (such as they’ve falsely
claimed it to have been, and still refer to it)? Will it
remain unstated (to have been a coup), until
decades later?

This was historically a very important event, because
 it directly precipitated America’s pretext for openly
 restoring the Cold War - 25 years after the 1991 end
 of the Soviet Union, and of its Warsaw Pact military
alliance & of their communism. The U.S. sanctions
 against Russia, and NATO’s pouring troops and
weapons onto and near Russia’s borders, were
hostile U.S. & European acts carried out under the
 shoddy pretext of Russia’s having accepted the will
of the residents in Crimea — which had been part of
Russia for hundreds of years until a Soviet dictator
arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 —
to become again part of Russia, which rejoining
of
Russia was precipitated (virtually forced) by
Obama’s coup, the coup that overthrew
the
Ukrainian President, for whom,
75% of Crimeans,
had voted.

Obama never gave a damn about what the people
of Crimea wanted. (Perhaps that’s why Crimeans’
approval of the U.S.’s role in Ukrainian affairs,
which was 6% before the coup, plunged to
 2.8% after the coup - according to Gallup.)

The master-liar Obama called this Putin’s ''conquest''
 of Crimea, but Obama never questioned, much less
 denied (as he does to the
Crimean people) the right
 of self-determination of peoples, in regards to the
 Catalonians in Spain, nor to the Scottish in the UK.
But when it happens in a former part of Russia, as
a direct consequence of Obama’s own conquest
of Russia’s next-door-
neighbour Ukraine (like
Mexico is to the U.S.),
Obama exhibited the
audacity to call it Putin’s
''conquest of land'',
and to say that Russia must
suffer for it.

Obama should have been prosecuted for it ---

(and for the even bloodier consequences of his
 coup), by the International Criminal Court, but
instead he ‘prosecuted’ (actually persecuted)
 Russia. What type of world is this?

That the coup was a bloody false-flag U.S. coup,
was obvious to Petro Poroshenko (subsequently
 to become Ukraine’s President, and commanded
 by Obama) even as early as when the coup had
ended, on February 26, 2014 - and Poroshenko
 acknowledged it at that time, to the European
 Union’s investigator, who had been sent in to
 find out how this blatantly illegal overthrow of
 Ukraine’s democratically elected President,
 had, in fact, occurred.

As the head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor himself,
 on 19 December 2014, called this overthrow, it was
 ''the most blatant coup in history'' - and the reason
 why it was so, is that, because of the widespread
new cellphone technology, this was the first coup
to have been extensively recorded and uploaded
 to the internet -- even while it was happening. A
compendium of these videos was uploaded to
youtube on 18 March 2014 (just weeks after the
 coup), which gave the world virtually a ringside
seat to the
coup's unfolding; and subsequently
more and more details on the coup’s background
became revealed, & an 80-page scholarly analysis
of all the evidence regarding the moment of the
coup itself, ''The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan
 in Ukraine'', confirmed that the massacre - the coup
event - was perpetrated by the same group that
organized & commanded the mass-demonstrations
 against the democratically elected President, Viktor
 Yanukovych (and the U.S. preparations for it went
 back to at least 1 March 2013, and the advance-
planning for it was done by the U.S. State Dept.,
 at least as far back as 2011); so, one would have
to
be an imbecile to question any longer that it
was
a ''coup'' - at least as much of a ''coup'' as 
America’s previous coups, such as when the
U.S. government did it to Iran in 1953, and to
 Guatemala in 1954, and to Chile in 1973 - and
 to so many others. (Of course, those coups
 too were denied by U.S. ‘news’ media at
the
time, and for a long time afterward.)

And anyone who would deny that it was a U.S.-run
coup would be disproven by the smoking-gun on the
matter, which was the youtubed phone-conversation
on 4 February 2014 — 18 days prior to the coup’s
 culminating event — in which Arseniy Yatsenyuk
was
chosen by Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland to
run the
Ukraine government, as soon as the coup
was
completed (this happened on February 26th).
Nuland was there telling the U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine, whom he should place in charge of
Ukraine, after the democratically elected
President
was ''gone''.

It’s one thing to perpetrate a coup; but it’s entirely
 something else then to punish the target — which
 typically is the leader (such as Saddam Hussein,
Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, & Bashar
 al-Assad) of a nation who is friendly toward Russia,
because Washington’s permanent obsession
is to
weaken Russia; Russia itself was the real target in

perpetrating Ukraine’s coup — as Obama and his
European vassals did, by punishing Russia for
responding to that coup on its very doorstep and
taking its necessary defensive measures against
 America’s aggression, especially in light of Ukraine’s
 having been told by Obama’s gang, that it should
apply for NATO membership — which Ukraine did.

It is all covered-up with lies. When will this scam
 against the US public, by the US ‘press’, ever end?
How can a country with such rotten ‘news’ media -
 keeping things like this secret from the American
 people - be a truly authentic democracy? It can’t.
And it isn’t.

Even Russia’s news media play-down the extent and
 significance of this problem. Russian Television
published, on December 27th, an opinion-article, by
a non-staff writer, headlined ''New York Times admits
Ukraine’s Yanukovich was right not to sign EU deal'',
which merely argued that Ukraine’s having rejected
Russia’s offer and gone with the EU’s offer (the offer
 from America’s vassal-aristocracies across the
 Atlantic) has harmed Ukraine’s farmers. This article
simply ignored the crucial fact: that Yanukovych had
turned down the EU’s proposed terms for Ukraine to
join the EU, because of its cripplingly-high price-tag:
$160 billion.

But actually, America’s coup in Ukraine did a lot
worse to Ukraine than just harm to Ukrainian
agriculture.

I headlined on 23 December 2015, ''Gallup: Ukrainians
 Loathe the Government that Obama Imposed'', and
 reported that that day’s Gallup poll report showed
 that ''17% approve of the job-performance of their
 President, Petro Poroshenko. While the pre-coup
President, Viktor Yanukovych, was in office,
2010-2014, that figure had been averaging
about
23%, and was never as low as
Poroshenko’s
is now.''

Subsequently, polling by Ukraine’s Sofia Centre for
 Social Studies (for example, in November 2016,
and
also in September 2016) showed similarly low
approval-ratings for the Obama-stooge regime. And
all
these polls -- Gallup’s and Sofia’s -- excluded the
 two breakaway regions, one of which (Donbass) had
voted 90% for Yanukovych, and the other of which
 (Crimea) had voted 75% for him, both of which knew
the Obama-stooge regime only as bombing them, and
 so would have had 0% approval for its current leader
 Poroshenko.

In other words, even without the two most pro-
Russian, anti-U.S., regions, being reflected in the
post-coup polls, the approval-rating for the U.S.-
stooge regime, within the more-pro-U.S. part of
the
remaining rump Ukraine, was even lower
than the
lowest-ever approval-rating for the
Yanukovych
government had been, over all
of Ukraine.


Obama - and his vassal-aristocracies in Europe
&
elsewhere - has imposed economic sanctions
against Russia, for Russia’s having allowed the
people of Crimea to rejoin Russia, after the hell
that Obama’s team had imposed upon Ukraine.

Obama called it Russia’s ‘conquest’ of Crimea.

Who's the liar here? Is it the U.S. regime
 and its propaganda-organs?

Or is it the Russian government?

In a brilliant summary by Paul Craig Roberts,
published on December 28th, and titled ''What Is
 Henry Kissinger Up To?'' is stated the forces that
are still trying, inside the United States, to conquer
& subdue America’s next President, Donald Trump.
But all of this is really about whether the plan that
George Herbert Walker Bush initiated on the night
 of 24 February 1990, for the US aristocracy to take
 over Russia, will now -- and finally -- end. No one
 can understand current history, without under-
standing that plan:-  the U.S. aristocracy’s

double-cross of Russia, which left only a
one-sided
(Russian) end of the Cold War,
while the other side
(America’s side)
continued it, sub-rosa, right up

until the present.

The NYT’s lies are in service to the forces that are
still trying to continue - and to intensify - the Cold
 War. And Paul Craig Roberts stated accurately
whom those forces actually represent. It’s
not the American public.

(source - Strategic Culture Foundation)

____________________________________


US/Ukraine smash
Soviet War Memorial







Legendary memorial at Saur-Tomb
''restored by May 2017''

DPR authorities have finished restoring the
Saur-Tomb by May 2017. It was announced
by the Building Minister, Sergey Naymets.


‘Saur Tomb has been being restored
since November, and we planned to
finish  this by May 2017’, the
Minister said.


He said "many people contributed to this
project of restoration of the
memorial
damaged by shelling," Naumets noted.


____________________________


Cool Russia!






Broken Dreams: the EU
shows Ukraine the door


Ukraine will not receive any military assistance or
 additional funding from the European Union, nor
will its citizens gain the right to reside and work
 in the EU. This decision was made during the EU
 summit dedicated to the Ukrainian issue. Kiev
should also forget about its candidate status
 for EU membership.

The EU doesn’t need Kiev

These listed points were already in the works
 before this summit. The EU didn't ban anything
 new, but merely formulated such in plain text
and wrote everything into the document of the
 Association Agreement. In other words, if Kiev
 wants to destroy the remnants of its economy
for the sake of Europe, it’s welcome to.
However, no additional preferences
 should be expected from the
European side.

The Trump effect

In fact, the Brussels bureaucracy is part of the
 globalist “swamp” and cannot openly state
that they do not need Ukraine. At the same
 time, Trump’s victory and the ongoing
reformatting of the world system can only
 mean one thing: the US will leave Ukraine,
 letting the countries of the Russian World
 themselves deal with this situation. This
 will inevitably lead to the overthrow of the
 Kiev regime and the normalization of the
situation. Ukraine in its present
configuration is living out its
 last months.

 Poroshenko’s collapse

Ukraine's European integration project was the
main slogan of Poroshenko’s Maidan and the
 main goal of his administration. The fact that
Europe has shown Kiev the door, says that
there is no need for the population to suffer
 any more at the current authorities' hands,
 now that they have finally destroyed the
country's economy and social sphere.
 Ukraine is among the poorest countries
 of the continent. Even today, the elites
are trying to persuade Washington to
appoint a new president of Ukraine,
 but the old US administration can't
 do this, and the new one doesn't
 even want to.

(source - Katehon)

_________________________________


It Begins: Flash Mobs Singing IN RUSSIAN
 Popping Up All Over East Ukraine

Ukraine and Russia may have been
split by a CIA/Soros/Obama coup, but
Zaporozhye in South central Ukraine,
a long way from independent Donbass
and living under a neofascist regime
which "disappears" dissenters, still
sing their hearts out --- as all over
Russia and Ukraine 'Flash Mobs'
say 'hello' to each other!



A prediction: The 'Trump effect' now sweeping
 Western Europe, will see the neocon-backed
 "government" in Kiev, swept out of most of
Russian-speaking Ukraine, within a year. 

The Nazis will keep the Western provinces, while the
 bulk of the country, including quite possibly the old
 Russian capital Kiev, will return to friendly relations
 with their fellow countrymen in Russia.

______________________

[Eng Subs] Children of Donbass,
"Toys for Poroshenko"
Music Video by Artem Grishanov

POWERFUL - PUT THIS ON HEADPHONES.
I guarantee you will cry - and if you don't
- please seek psychiatric help.



In 2017 in the Donbass - give the children Peace!


Ethnic Ruthenes of sub-Carpathian
Ukraine demand autonomy
December 23, 2:22 

Activists of a Slavic ethnic group known as Ruthenes
-- or Rusyns -- who reside in the Trans-Carpathian
(sub-
Carpathian) region of Ukraine, have turned
to
President Pyotr Poroshenko with a demand:

  recognize the results of 1991's regional
  referendum --- when 78% of the region's
residents, voted in favor of granting it
the status of a
self-governing region.


"We have two main demands - to recognize the
 Rhuthenes as an ethnos and to acknowledge
 the regional referendum of 1991, where 78%
sub-Carpathians voted for the region being
 a self-governed territory within Ukraine,"
Vesti quoted Ivan Palinkash, the
leader
of the Ruthene movement &
a member
of
the People’s Council's presidium  
of Sub-
Carpathian Ruthenes.


Natalya Magalina, a deputy of Uzhgorod district
 council, told the meeting of leaders of Ruthene
ethnic organizations it is important to maintain
 the Ruthene language by establishing minimal
 norms for broadcasting in the native tongue,
over the state regional TV Channel Tisa-1.

This isn't the first time that the Ruthenes of the sub-
Carpathian area have asked the Kiev government to
 recognize the outcome of the referendum held 25
 years ago. The Coordination Council of Ruthene
 Organizations of the Trans-Carpathian Region
turned to the central authorities with the
same requirement, the previous time,
in
the summer of 2015.


It was also in the summer of 2015 that the activists
 of Ruthene organizations adopted an appeal to the
 Council of Europe, the European Commission, the
Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe
& the UN, as well as to the parliaments of Hungary,
 the Czech Republic, & Slovakia, to wield pressure
 on President Poroshenko and force the Ukrainian
 government towards accepting the result of
 their referendum.

The Ruthenes are an indigenous sub-Carpathian
 people. Ukrainian authorities do not consider
 them to be a separate ethnos, and continue
calling them Ukrainians, although the UN
 has issued recommendations more than
once, to recognize their status as a
separate ethnos.

More than that, Kiev accuses the leaders of
Ruthene organizations of making appeals
 for encroachments on the territorial
 integrity of the country.

(source - TASS)



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Zionist lobby preventing West
from criticizing Israel: Analyst
Fri Dec 16, 2016

The European Union has censured the Israeli regime
 for destroying Palestinian shelters and structures in
the occupied territories. According to a statement
by the European bloc, the Tel Aviv regime has
 demolished 866 structures so far in 2016 in
Area C of the West Bank, which is under
 full Israeli military control.

Anthony Hall, editor-in-chief of the American Herald
 Tribune from Alberta, says that the European states
 have been under the influence of the Zionist lobby
to go along with Israeli interests - and thus refuse
 to slam crimes against the Palestinian people.

“Every government within the EU has a very strong
 Israeli lobby, and this is one of the dilemmas that
 the Western people are facing,” Hall explained.

“Not only the governing parties but the opposition
parties as well, are constraining discussion and
 discourse within a very narrow range, that puts
 Israeli priorities at the top of the list in all our
 Western countries,” he added.

The professor also called on Western citizens
 to “intervene directly and make contact with
the Palestinian people, directly.”

“We, as the citizens in the EU, citizens in Canada,
& citizens in the US, have to find ways to bypass
the constraints of our governments & the biases
and power of this lobby over our governments,”
he noted.

Hall criticized the EU for its forensic accounting
of homes demolished in Palestine.

“This type of numerical accounting fails to really
 describe the nature of this destruction of homes
 in its broader context ------ where thousands of
Palestinian people are in dungeons and being
 tortured in Israeli incarceration facilities,”
he said.

“The reality: that the world is letting this
 happen is very discouraging,” he added. 

Hall warned that the prospect of a Palestinian
state is no longer viable, given the emphasis
on building up settlements, and destroying
the structures of the indigenous people
 of Palestine.

"This goes beyond apartheid,” he said.

The Israeli policy of demolishing houses in
the
West Bank to build illegal settler units
has
affected 5,704 Palestinians, of whom,
1,221
have been rendered homeless,
 including 586 children.

   (source - PressTv)

_____________________________________


UN Adopts "Paper Tiger" Resolution, on
Israel's Withdrawal from the Syrian Golan
 
Fahwad Al-Khadoumi - The UN General Assembly
 adopted yet another resolution demanding that
Israel withdraw from the occupied Syrian Golan
 Heights, in line with a resolution of June 4, 1967.

However, UN General Assembly resolutions are
non-binding and no more than a paper tiger, with-
out a unanimous decision by the permanent UN
Security Council members, to enforce them; A
highly unlikely prospect.

In its latest resolution, the UN General Assembly
 again condemned Israel's non-compliance with
UN Security Council Resolution 497 (1981).
 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 via 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 Labour rebels 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-Corbyn 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 campaign had breached international law.
 The motion did not 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 those Labour MPs who
abstained or weren't present for the 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


UN Warns Children at Risk as
Yemen Catastrophe Looms
February 10, 2017

Three UN agencies Friday launched an appeal
 for emergency food aid to conflict-torn Yemen
to avoid a humanitarian “catastrophe” that
will hit children hardest.

An assessment by the UN’s agencies for food and
 for children, FAO and UNICEF, and the World Food
 Programme, finds “unprecedented” levels of hunger
 with the number of people who could not be sure of
having enough to eat, up by 3 million, in 7 months.

A total of 17.1 million people are now struggling to
 feed themselves with 7.3 million of those in need
of emergency assistance. Yemen's population
 is 27.4 million.

The joint study was the first of its kind since the
 conflict dramatically escalated in March 2015
after Saudi Arabia led a joint international
coalition to war against Yemen's people.

One fallout of the fighting has been a slump
 in agricultural production across the country,
 contributing to soaring malnutrition. “We are
witnessing some of the highest numbers of
malnutrition amongst children in Yemen in
recent times,” said Meritxell Relano,
UNICEF’s representative in Yemen.

“Children who are severely and acutely
 malnourished are 11 times more at risk
of death as compared to their healthy
peers, if not treated in time.”

Stephen Anderson, WFP Country Director in
Yemen, said: “The current level of hunger in
Yemen is unprecedented. “Tragically, we
see more and more families skipping
meals or going to bed hungry.”

The conflict has left more than 7,400 people
 dead and 40,000 injured, but UN-led peace
efforts and seven ceasefires have all
ended in failure.

...and US and Saudi ships are stopping
all food imports from getting through!!!

This is GENOCIDE.


(Source: AFP)

___________________________________


‘How Can I Deselect My Labour MP?’ A Short Guide
to 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
all 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 in Syria / Iraq

Today, for instance, the US & its allies are accusing
Syria & Russia of war crimes in east Aleppo, even
 as the US’s own and allied forces launch a similar
assault on Mosul. Both attacks are killing civilians
& reducing much of a city to rubble; the rationale
is the same, counterterrorism; & there are many
more people in the line of fire in Mosul, than in
east Aleppo.

But the US propaganda machine ensures that
 most US citizens see only one, in Mosul, as a
 legitimate counterterrorism operation (with
Islamic State accused of using the civilians
 as “human shields”) and the other, in east
Aleppo, as a massacre (with the presence
of Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the former
Nusra Front, virtually whited out of the
 West’s coverage, which focuses almost
entirely on the children and makes no
 mention of “human shields”).

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 the 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 and 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?


___________________________________


VIVA ALLENDE! ISABEL ALLENDE BUSSI TO RUN
 FOR PRESIDENT OF CHILE IN 2017 ELECTIONS!

Novorossia Today - Isabel Allende Bussi, the first
 female leader in the 83-year history of the Socialist
Party of Chile (PS), and daughter of famed former
leader Salvador Allende, has said that she will
 present herself as a candidate on behalf of her
party in the 2017 presidential election.

______________________________________


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.

Results of UN vote condemning glorification of fascism

 



The graphic video above shows
fascism in the centre of Europe.
Our media says the US-backed
coup in Ukraine, is a people's
revolution: we say it's fascism.

New Russian military base next to USA

a new Russia base appears just near Alaska


LATEST NEWS, ON
THURSDAY, JAN. 31st

 

Lebanon’s leaders agree -
new govt to be led by Hariri 
- political factions say
January 31st, at 4:37pm

Lebanese leaders reached a deal, on Thursday, to
set up a new unity government, Reuters reported,
citing three political sources from different
factions.

The agreement would end nine months of wrangling
 over how to share out cabinet portfolios in the
heavily indebted state.

It will be the third government led by the Western-
backed Saad al-Hariri, who has vowed to carry
 out economic reforms.

 Ali Hassan Khalil will stay on as finance
 minister, a senior official said.

 Negotiations on the new national unity government
- including the main political blocs - began after a
May 6th election, in which allies of the Iranian-
backed Shiite group Hezbollah gained ground.

Hezbollah has reportedly picked Shiite doctor Jamil
Jabak as the health minister in the new government.

 By picking the health minister, Hezbollah will be moving
 beyond the more marginal role it has played in past
governments.

(Source - RT)


__________________________________________________






Nuclear Powers
 Responsible for
Preserving World Peace
 Beijing, January 31st, at 3:29pm

Prensa Latina - The meeting between the five nuclear
powers concluded in Beijing, on Thursday, with the
commitment of those states to share responsibility
for preserving peace and security on the planet,
the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
reported
on Thursday.

Geng Shuang, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman,
 said at a press conference, that the meeting - called
P5 - was a success and produced a consensus that
 China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and the
United States will support the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in force.

They also pledged to cooperate with each other,
maintain strategic consultations, closely
coordinate the pact's review and foster
open dialogue with sectors of the
international community, such as
academia and the press, he said.

Geng considered the common work of these states
 to be essential in the face of security challenges
 in the current world.

He emphasized the importance of looking objectively
 at each other's strategic intentions - strengthening
 mutual trust and exchanges on the subject.

China, in its capacity as rotating coordinator of the P5,
 will continue to work on promoting consensus,
managing differences among the 5 countries
and replacing rivalry with cooperation,
the
spokesman added.

The meeting was held Wednesday and Thursday
in Beijing and focused on unifying positions on
disarmament, the peaceful use of atomic
energy and the validity of the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons.

Aside from the meeting, Russia and the US
discussed their dispute over the Treaty on
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
 and, according to international press
 reports, the talks were
 unsuccessful.

Washington threatened to begin withdrawing from that
 arrangement next Saturday, unless Moscow agrees to
 destroy the Novator 9M729 missile, which the White
House believes violates the agreement.

Russia claims full compliance with the 1987 treaty
 between the former Soviet Union and the US.

That agreement addresses the elimination of short
 & intermediate-range missiles, and is considered
 a transcendental document reached during the
 Cold War, for the resolution of international
 friction, the control of the nuclear process
 & the protection of the planet's security
in the past, as well as in the present.


_______________________________





Thai party ousted in 2014 coup
picks Thaksin loyalist for PM
 in elections
January 31st, at 3:24pm

Thailand’s Pheu Thai Party, which was ousted
 from power by the military in a 2014 coup, on
 Thursday picked a close ally of fugitive ex-
premier Thaksin Shinawatra, as its main
 candidate for prime minister.

 The elections are scheduled for March 24th. Pheu
Thai’s Sudarat Keyuraphan could face off against
current military junta leader Prayuth Chan-ocha
in the election.

However, Prayuth has not yet said he will accept
the nomination of a pro-military party that wants
him on its ticket.

 Prayuth is expected to make a speech on Friday
 outlining the successes of the junta’s nearly
five years in power.

 Veteran politician Sudarat, 57, is a longtime Thaksin
ally, who helped found his now-defunct Thai Rak
Thai Party, a predecessor to Pheu Thai.

(Source - RT)


___________________________________________





Nearly 1,000 Deserters
Join Syrian Army
 January 31st, at 3:15pm

Prensa Latina - Nearly 1,000 deserters returned to
the Syrian army in just one week, due to the 2018
amnesty decree in the provinces of Damascus,
 Hasaka, Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, military
sources reported.

Chief of Syria's Political Security Directorate,
 Lieutenant General Hassan, stated that, in
 less than 24 hours, about 32 military
deserters turned themselves in to
the Military Police of Damascus,
along with hundreds of fugitives
who fled from the Military
 Compulsory Service.

He added that the pardoned soldiers will join their units
to defend the homeland & fight terrorist organizations,
 after legalizing their status, according to the laws
 in force.

The figure includes those who accepted the pardon and
 rejoined the army in regions of the provinces of Hasaka,
 Raqqa and Deir Edzzor, the sources said.

The operations in this regard were organized by the
Syrian security forces and the Military Police, the
 reports stated.


____________________________________________________




                  
Greece to ratify Macedonia’s
NATO accession deal in
 ‘coming days’ – Athens
January 31st, at 2:47pm

Greece will bring Macedonia’s NATO accession
 agreement to parliament for ratification “in
the coming days,” the government
spokes
man said, on Thursday.

The move would bring into effect the change
of the country’s name to North Macedonia.

Once parliament ratifies the NATO protocol,
Greece’s Foreign Ministry will inform their
 colleagues in Macedonia of the result,
and this will automatically bring the
name change into effect, spokes-
man
Dimitris Tzanakopoulos
said. He
didn’t give a
specific date.

 Tzanakopoulos added that the nearly three-decade
dispute had given rise to... “the monster of lies,
nationalism and extreme historic revisionism”
 in Greece, AP reports.

(Source - RT)


___________________________________________________





Russia registered most powerful
 cyberattack from abroad, on
 presidential election day
January 31st, at 2:35pm

TASS - The most powerful cyberattack from abroad
 was launched on the day of Russia’s presidential
elections in March 2018, to discredit the election
 results, Deputy Director of the National
Coordination Centre for Computer
Incidents, Nikolai Murashov, said,
at the National Information
Security Forum, Infoforum
-
2019, on Thursday.

The Centre had registered cyberattacks from abroad
 since June 2017 against the national segment of
 the Internet, Murashov said.

The first peak of this cyberattack was registered on the
 day when the Russian president held his annual Q&A
session on June 15th, 2017, he said.

"Thanks to the technical measures taken in advance, the
 cyberattack did not affect such an important event,"
 Murashov said.

"The peak of a new cyberattack wave was registered on
 March 18th, 2018, the day of the Russian presidential
elections. The attack aimed to disrupt the video
 surveillance over the voting process, across
the country - which could
have unleashed
a campaign
for discrediting the election

results,"
the Centre’s
deputy
director said.

The cyberattack used a botnet of 30,000 computers in
 86 countries. The bot daily generated 15,000 queries
 for DNS-servers, which created outmost loads,
 Murashov said.

Over six months, Russian specialists halted the operation
of 50,000 sources of cyberattacks and exposed the use
of 30,000 domain names by perpetrators. The
specialists analyzed 100 samples and four
modifications of the malware and notified
85 national groups of response to
computer incidents about their
 results, he said.

"As a result, a system of technical measures was introduced.
It helped prevent the disruption of the national segment of
the Internet," Murashov explained.

The National Coordination Centre for Computer Incidents
was set up in September 2018, by order of the FSB
(Federal Security Service) after a decree by the
Russian president, on establishing the State
System of Detecting, Preventing and
Eliminating the Consequences of
Computer Attacks on Russia’s
 Information Resources
(GosSOPKA in Russian).


____________________________________________




Kosovo PM says
 Serb goods tax
‘should not be
 linked to talks’
January 31st, at 1:15pm

Kosovo’s Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj on Thursday
 insisted that talks on normalizing relations with Serbia
should continue and should not be linked to Pristina’s
tax on Serb goods.

Haradinaj pointed out that Kosovo didn’t halt talks
with
Serbia, when Belgrade prevented it from
joining
Interpol last year, AP said.

 “The tax is Kosovo’s sovereign decision. It was
not set
against the dialogue,” Haradinaj said.

“Serbia has taken a lot of decisions, but none of them
 has served to push us not to go to the table of talks.”

In November, Kosovo set a 100 percent import tariff
on Serb and Bosnian goods, saying it would only be
 lifted, when Belgrade recognizes its sovereignty
 and stops preventing it from joining
 international organizations.

 The EU-facilitated dialogue started in 2011. Belgrade
 says it won’t take part until the tariff is lifted.

Serbia
does not accept Kosovo’s
2008 declaration of
independence.

(Source - RT)


___________________________________________________





 US, SDF Prevent Dispatch
of Humanitarian Aid
to Eastern Syria
January 31st, at 12:52pm

FNA - The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)
 blocked a convoy of humanitarian aid sent by the
Syrian authorities to the city of Hajin, forcing the
 vehicles to turn around, Russian sources said.

General Sergei Solomatin, the head of the Russian Centre
 for Syrian Reconciliation, announced on Wednesday, that
Damascus, together with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent
Society organized a shipment of humanitarian aid to
Hajin, located on the Eastern bank of the Euphrates
River on January 30th.

"A column of humanitarian aid consisting of 10 trucks
carrying bottled water, food and medical supplies, as
well as hygiene products and basic necessities, was
blocked in al-Hossainiyeh region, by Kurdish units
from the US-backed SDF," Solomatin said.

Solomatin added that Kurdish militia forced the convoy
 to turn around, obeying strict orders by the US
military officials.

He said that Syria's Red Crescent Society has been
 authorized by the UN and the Red Cross to send
humanitarian aid to all regions of the war-torn
country.

A total of 2,000 people currently stay in the Eastern
 Syrian city of Hajin, held by the ISIL terrorist group,
according to Andrej Mahecic, the spokesperson of
 the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
 

____________________________________________________






 Discovered Near Damascus:
Large Cache of Israeli,
Western Arms


January 31st, at 12 midday

FNA - The Syrian army found a large number of weapons
 and military equipment, including Israeli and western
arms, during cleansing operations in Eastern
Damascus.

The engineering units of the Syrian army found the large
 cache in the Eastern Ghouta of Damascus on Thursday.

The cache included several Israeli machine-guns, RPGs,
 NATO-made sniper guns and missile-launchers.

Last week, the Syrian army found a large number of
 weapons and ammunition, including Israeli and
 western arms, during cleansing operations, in
the former bases of terrorists near Damascus.

The engineering units of the Syrian army discovered
 weapons and military equipment, including different
types of mortars, artilleries, RPGs and over 200,000
rounds of machine-guns and guns, in operations to
 purge terrorists from the towns near Damascus.

Meantime, a field source reported that the army forces
found Israeli missiles, western sniper guns, satellite
systems and night-vision goggles and systems
 among the weapons.



_________________________________________________





''Sajdik’s Donbass plan'' is
pro-American, dead end
for Minsk process
 – Nikonorova
January 31st,  11:30am

DAN - The Donbass conflict settlement plan proposed
 by Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-
in-Office in Ukraine, Martin Sajdik, was designed in
 U.S. interests, to deadlock the Minsk talks,
 Donetsk People’s Republic envoy to the
Contact Group, DPR Foreign Minister,
 Natalia Nikonorova, said
on Thursday.

“U.S. interests were obviously behind the so-called
 “Sajdik’s plan”, from the beginning, to deliberately
 bring the negotiations to a dead end, in the hope
 to prolong the conflict at Russia’s borders, and
continue to put pressure on it,” Nikonorova
said, in a statement.

On Thursday, U.S. Department of State special
representativefor Ukraine negotiations,
Kurt Volker, supported the previously
announced “peace plan.” The DPR
 is not surprised at this situation.

“Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Department of State special
 representative, again, supports a plan which nobody
 understands or approves, even the OSCE and the
UN, as it totally contradicts the Package of
Measures provisions,” Nikonorova noted.

The only possible way to secure a political settlement
 in Donbas, is to implement the Minsk Agreements,
 which, in turn, envision the coordination “of any
conflict settlement initiatives” with the DPR
and the LPR, she said.

Sajdik, in an interview to Austrian magazine Kleine Zeitung
 on January 24th, alleged that a new approach was needed
for settling the Donbass conflict, such as the emergence
of a UN interim administration - with police and military
functions in the People’s Republics. The DPR Foreign
Ministry views the new Donbass plan, as a bid to
sabotage Minsk-2.


____________________________________



Dozens of people
martyred, injured
by Saudi-led
Aggression on Yemen
January 31st, at 11:06am

Dozens of people were martyred or injured in various
areas across Yemen by the Saudi-led aggression on
the Arab impoverished country.

Two children martyred on Thursday by a US-Saudi
artillery shelling targeting border villages at
Saada Governorate.

Al-Massirah Net reporter affirmed that populated
 villages at Razih border district, were targeted
by Saudi artillery shelling, killing 2 children
and causing material damage in the area.

Earlier on Wednesday, houses and property of citizens
at Baqem border district were bombed with dozens of
 missiles by US-Saudi forces, leading to material
damage to the property of citizens. The Saudi-
led aggression launched 3 raids on Kitaf
district and a series of raids on Al-
Dhaher border district of Saada,
Al-Massirah reported.

Elsewhere at Hodeidah Governorate and other
 districts, the US-Saudi aggression intensified
its airstrikes, rocketry and artillery shelling,
leading to the martyrdom and injury of
6
people, including women.

A man martyred and 2 other women injured by
 the enemy’s aggression on their house at
Al-Monkem village, Yemen new agency
(SABA) reported.

The US-Saudi forces fired more than 15 Katyusha
rockets at Al-Za’afara village & districts around. 
Spy drones were also spotted at the area.

Residential areas, the airport, Yemen mobile, Al-
Shabab
neighbourhood and many other outskirts
of
Hodeidah, were shelled by the aggression’s
 artillery and weapons, sources said.

(Sources: Al-Massirah/al Manar)


___________________________________________




Russia Says ‘No Progress’
 on Nuclear Treaty ahead
of Deadline
January 31st, at 10:16am

Moscow and Washington have made “no progress” in talks
 on saving a key arms control treaty, a Russian diplomat
said on Thursday, with the United States expected to
begin withdrawal this weekend.

Russian and US officials had met on the sidelines of a meeting
of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in
Beijing to discuss the fate of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
 Forces treaty (INF) — a source of raging tensions between
 Moscow and Washington.

“Unfortunately, there is no progress,” Russian Deputy
 Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, after talks with
Andrea Thompson, Under Secretary of State for
Arms
Control and International Security.

The United States has warned that it will begin a six-month
 withdrawal process from the treaty on February 2nd unless
Russia destroys its 9M729 ground-based missile system,
which, it says, breaches the Cold War-era agreement.