US/NATO War on Russia

[David Guyatt]

A Must Read --- and then weep at the breath-taking hypocrisy of it (the linked version is easier to read btw).

Text of House Resolution 758.

Whereas they're still blaming Russia for the shoot down of MH17.

Whereas lies and propaganda are dressed as the truth and voted on.

I can't even begin to enumerate how absolutely deceitful this resolution is. There's just so much of it.

Text of Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression ...

...of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.
This simple resolution was agreed to on December 4, 2014. That is the end of the legislative process for a simple resolution. The text of the bill below is as of Dec 4, 2014 (Passed the House (Engrossed)).

Download PDF
Source: GPO



H. RES. 758
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 4, 2014
RESOLUTION
Whereas the Russian Federation has subjected Ukraine to a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression for the purpose of establishing its domination over the country and progressively erasing its independence;Whereas the Russian Federation's invasion of, and military operations on, Ukrainian territory represent gross violations of Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity and a violation of international law, including the Russian Federation's obligations under the United Nations Charter;Whereas the Russian Federation has, since February 2014, violated each of the 10 principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords in its relations with Ukraine;Whereas the Russian Federation's forcible occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing support for separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine are violations of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which it pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine;Whereas the Russian Federation has provided military equipment, training, and other assistance to separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine that has resulted in over 4,000 civilian deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees, and widespread destruction;Whereas the Ukrainian military remains at a significant disadvantage compared to the armed forces of the Russian Federation in terms of size and technological sophistication;Whereas the United States strongly supports efforts to assist Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty against military aggression by the Russian Federation and by separatist forces;Whereas the terms of the cease-fire specified in the Minsk Protocol that was signed on September 5, 2014, by representatives of the Government of Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the Russian-led separatists in the eastern area of Ukraine have been repeatedly violated by the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports;Whereas separatist forces in areas they controlled in eastern Ukraine prevented the holding of elections on May 25, 2014, for a new President of Ukraine and on October 26, 2014, for a new Rada, thereby preventing the people of eastern Ukraine from exercising their democratic right to select their candidates for office in free and fair elections;Whereas on November 2, 2014, separatist forces in eastern Ukraine held fraudulent and illegal elections in areas they controlled for the supposed purpose of choosing leaders of the illegitimate local political entities they have declared;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to provide the military, political, and economic support without which the separatist forces could not continue to maintain their areas of control;Whereas the reestablishment of peace and security in Ukraine requires the full withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, the resumption of the Government of Ukraine's control over all of the country's international borders, the disarming of the separatist and paramilitary forces in the east, an end to Russia's use of its energy exports and trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs;Whereas Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, was destroyed by a missile fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in the loss of 298 innocent lives;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to supply the vast majority of arms purchases, which include anti-aircraft missile systems and other lethal weapons, to the Bashar Assad regime in Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism that is actively backed by Hezbollah, a sophisticated terrorist group hostile to the United States and its close allies;Whereas the Russian Federation has protected the Assad regime and backed its brutal assault against the Syrian people;Whereas the Russian Federation has used and is continuing to use coercive economic measures, including the manipulation of energy prices and supplies, as well as trade restrictions, to place political and economic pressure on Ukraine;Whereas France agreed to sell to the Russian Federation two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships in 2011 for $1.7 billion;Whereas Russian possession of these ships would be a destabilizing addition to the Russian military, which would likely have boosted its ability to invade Crimea;Whereas given the Russian invasion of sovereign territory of the Republic of Ukraine in Crimea and elsewhere and its dangerous behavior throughout the region, France decided to suspend delivery of the Mistral-class warships to the Russian Federation;Whereas purchase of the two Mistral-class warships by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries would expand NATO's capabilities, resolve France's legitimate concern over the cost of the ships, and eliminate a potential threat to countries in Eastern Europe; Whereas the Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Georgia in August 2008, continues to station military forces in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and is implementing measures intended to progressively integrate these regions into the Russian Federation, including by signing a treatybetween Georgia's Abkhazia Region and the Russian Federation on November 24, 2014;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to subject the Republic of Georgia to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the country and to prevent Georgia from establishing closer relations with the European Union and the United States;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to station military forces in the Transniestria region of Moldova in violation of the express will of the Government of Moldova and of its Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) commitments;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to provide support to the illegal separatist regime in the Transniestria region of Moldova;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to subject Moldova to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the country and to prevent efforts by Moldova to establish closer relations with the European Union and the United States;Whereas the Russian Federation acceded to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty obligation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a declaration issued at Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in October 1992; Whereas under the terms of the INF Treaty, a flight-test or deployment of any INF-banned weapon delivery vehicle by the Russian Federation constitutes a militarily significant violation of the INF Treaty;Whereas on April 2, 2014, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Breedlove, stated that, A weapon capability that violates the INF, that is introduced into the greater European land mass is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with * * *. I would not judge how the alliance will choose to react, but I would say they will have to consider what to do about it * * *. It can't go unanswered.;Whereas on July 29, 2014, the United States Department of State released its report on the Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, as required by Section 403 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, for calendar year 2013, which found that, [t]he United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles;Whereas concerns also exist with respect to a new Russian ballistic missile, the RS26, which, according to reports, has been tested on multiple occasions at intermediate ranges, and in different configurations, which would be covered by the interpretative statements the United States Senate relied upon when it ratified the INF Treaty in May 1988;Whereas the Russian Federation has requested the approval of new sensors and new aircraft to be flown over the United States and Europe as part of the Treaty on Open Skies, and serious concerns have been raised regarding impacts to United States national security if such approval is given;Whereas on November 11, 2014, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Breedlove, stated that, Russian forces capable of being nuclear are being moved to the Crimea Peninsula;Whereas according to reports, the Government of the Russian Federation has repeatedly engaged in the infiltration of, and attacks on, computer networks of the United States Government, as well as individuals and private entities, for the purpose of illicitly acquiring information and disrupting operations, including by supporting Russian individuals and entities engaged in these actions;Whereas the political, military, and economic aggression against Ukraine and other countries by the Russian Federation underscores the enduring importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the cornerstone of collective Euro-Atlantic defense;Whereas the United States reaffirms its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5 which states that an armed attack against one or more of the treaty signatories shall be considered an attack against them all;Whereas the Russian Federation is continuing to use its supply of energy as a means of political and economic coercion against Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other European countries;Whereas the United States strongly supports energy diversification initiatives in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other European countries to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its supply of energy for political and economic coercion, including the development of domestic sources of energy, increased efficiency, and substituting Russian energy resources with imports from other countries;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to conduct an aggressive propaganda effort in Ukraine in which false information is used to subvert the authority of the legitimate national government, undermine stability, promote ethnic dissension, and incite violence;Whereas the Russian Federation has expanded the presence of its state-sponsored media in national languages across central and western Europe with the intent of using news and information to distort public opinion and obscure Russian political and economic influence in Europe;Whereas expanded efforts by United States international broadcasting across all media in the Russian and Ukrainian languages are needed to counter Russian propaganda and to provide the people of Ukraine and the surrounding regions with access to credible and balanced information;Whereas the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated continue to represent a minority market share in Ukraine and other regional states with significant ethno-linguistic Russian populations who increasingly obtain their local and international news from Russian state-sponsored media outlets;Whereas the United States International Programming to Ukraine and Neighboring Regions Act of 2014 (Public Law 11396) requires the Voice of America and RFE/RL, Incorporated to provide programming content to target populations in Ukraine and Moldova 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including at least 8 weekly hours of total original video and television content and 14 weekly hours of total audio content while expanding cooperation with local media outlets and deploying greater content through multimedia platforms and mobile devices; andWhereas Vladimir Putin has established an increasingly authoritarian regime in the Russian Federation through fraudulent elections, the persecution and jailing of political opponents, the elimination of independent media, the seizure of key sectors of the economy and enabling supporters to enrich themselves through widespread corruption, and implementing a strident propaganda campaign to justify Russian aggression against other countries and repression in Russia, among other actions: Now, therefore, be itThat the House of Representatives(1)strongly supports the efforts by President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine to establish a lasting peace in their country that includes the full withdrawal of Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine, full control of Ukraine's international borders, the disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, the adoption of policies to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use energy exports and trade barriers as weapons to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of Ukraine; (2)affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention, and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples; (3)condemns the continuing political, economic, and military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and the continuing violation of their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity; (4)states that the military intervention by the Russian Federation in Ukraine(A)is in breach of its obligations under the United Nations Charter;(B)is in clear violation of each of the 10 principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords;©is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which it pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine; and(D)poses a threat to international peace and security;(5)calls on the Russian Federation to reverse its illegal annexation of Crimea, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine; (6)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to refuse to recognize any de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its territorial waters; (7)calls on the Russian Federation to remove its military forces and military equipment from the territory of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and to end its political, military, and economic support of separatist forces;(8)calls on the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports and controls in Ukraine to end their violations of the cease-fire announced in Minsk on September 5, 2014; (9)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to impose visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions, and other measures on the Russian Federation and its leadership with the goal of compelling it to end its violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, to remove its military forces and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and to end its support of separatist and paramilitary forces;(10)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty;(11)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with appropriate intelligence and other relevant information in a timely manner to assist the Government of Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty; (12)calls on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and United States partners in Europe and other nations around the world to suspend all military cooperation with Russia, including prohibiting the sale to the Russian Government of lethal and non-lethal military equipment;(13)reaffirms the commitment of the United States to its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5, and calls on all Alliance member states to provide their full share of the resources needed to ensure their collective defense; (14)urges the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies;(15)welcomes the decision of France to indefinitely suspend the delivery of the Mistral-class warships to the Russian Federation and urges the United States, France, NATO, and other partners to engage in consultations and consider all alternative acquisition options for such warships which would not include transfer of the ships to the Russian Federation;(16)urges the President to publicly hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to take action to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance with the Treaty;(17)urges the President to work with Asian, European, and other allies to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure the Russian Federation is not able to gain any benefit by its development of military systems that violate the INF Treaty;(18)believes the emplacement by the Russian Federation of its nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory would constitute a provocative and destabilizing move; (19)calls on Ukraine and other countries to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its energy exports as a means of applying political or economic pressure, including by promoting energy efficiency and reverse natural gas flows from Western Europe, and calls on the United States to promote increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency;(20)calls on the President and the United States Department of State to develop a strategy for multilateral coordination to produce or otherwise procure and distribute news and information in the Russian language to countries with significant Russian-speaking populations which maximizes the use of existing platforms for content delivery such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated, leverages indigenous public-private partnerships for content production, and seeks in-kind contributions from regional state governments;(21)calls on the United States Department of State to identify positions at key diplomatic posts in Europe to evaluate the political, economic, and cultural influence of Russia and Russian state-sponsored media and to coordinate with host governments on appropriate responses;(22)calls on the Russian Federation to cease its support for the Assad regime in Syria;(23)calls on the President to publicly and privately demand the Russian Federation cease its destabilizing behavior at every opportunity and in every engagement between the United States and its officials and the Russian Federation and its officials; (24)calls upon the Russian Federation to seek a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries and their right to freely determine their future, including their relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries; and(25)calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.

[David Guyatt]

As a counter balance to the foregoing hypocrisy:

William Blum's "Master List" of other countries governments overthrown by the US:

Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List

By William Blum Published February 2013
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

• China 1949 to early 1960s
  
• Albania 1949-53
  
• East Germany 1950s
  
• Iran 1953 *
  
• Guatemala 1954 *
  
• Costa Rica mid-1950s
  
• Syria 1956-7
  
• Egypt 1957
  
• Indonesia 1957-8
  
• British Guiana 1953-64 *
  
• Iraq 1963 *
  
• North Vietnam 1945-73
  
• Cambodia 1955-70 *
  
• Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  
• Ecuador 1960-63 *
  
• Congo 1960 *
  
• France 1965
  
• Brazil 1962-64 *
  
• Dominican Republic 1963 *
  
• Cuba 1959 to present
  
• Bolivia 1964 *
  
• Indonesia 1965 *
  
• Ghana 1966 *
  
• Chile 1964-73 *
  
• Greece 1967 *
  
• Costa Rica 1970-71
  
• Bolivia 1971 *
  
• Australia 1973-75 *
  
• Angola 1975, 1980s
  
• Zaire 1975
  
• Portugal 1974-76 *
  
• Jamaica 1976-80 *
  
• Seychelles 1979-81
  
• Chad 1981-82 *
  
• Grenada 1983 *
  
• South Yemen 1982-84
  
• Suriname 1982-84
  
• Fiji 1987 *
  
• Libya 1980s
  
• Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  
• Panama 1989 *
  
• Bulgaria 1990 *
  
• Albania 1991 *
  
• Iraq 1991
  
• Afghanistan 1980s *
  
• Somalia 1993
  
• Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  
• Ecuador 2000 *
  
• Afghanistan 2001 *
  
• Venezuela 2002 *
  
• Iraq 2003 *
  
• Haiti 2004 *
  
• Somalia 2007 to present
  
• Libya 2011*
  
• Syria 2012
  

Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.

US bombing of other countries :

William Blum

Official website of the author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic.

United States bombings of other countries

It is a scandal in contemporary international law, don't forget, that while "wanton destruction of towns, cities and villages" is a war crime of long standing, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the antistate terrorists who ever lived. Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant, but we are happy to elect a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not only restaurants but the buildings that contained them and the neighborhoods that surrounded them. I went to Iraq after the Gulf war and saw for myself what the bombs did; "wanton destruction" is just the term for it. C. Douglas Lummis, political scientist

The above was written in 1994, before the wanton destruction generated by the bombing of Yugoslavia, another in a long list of countries the United States has bombarded since the end of World War II, which is presented below.
There appears to be something about launching bombs or missiles from afar onto cities and people that appeals to American military and political leaders. In part it has to do with a conscious desire to not risk American lives in ground combat. And in part, perhaps not entirely conscious, it has to do with not wishing to look upon the gory remains of the victims, allowing American GIs and TV viewers at home to cling to their warm fuzzy feelings about themselves, their government, and their marvelous "family values". Washington officials are careful to distinguish between the explosives the US drops from the sky and "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), which only the officially-designated enemies (ODE) are depraved enough to use. The US government speaks sternly of WMD, defining them as nuclear, chemical and biological in nature, and "indiscriminate" (meaning their use can't be limited to military objectives), as opposed to the likes of American "precision" cruise missiles. This is indeed a shaky semantic leg to stand on, given the well-known extremely extensive damage to non-military targets, including numerous residences, schools and hospitals, even from American "smart" bombs, in almost all of the bombings listed below.
Moreover, Washington does not apply the term "weapons of mass destruction" to other weapons the US has regularly used, such as depleted uranium and cluster bombs, which can be, and often are, highly indiscriminate.
WMD are sometimes further defined as those whose effects linger in the environment, causing subsequent harm to people. This would certainly apply to cluster bombs, and depleted uranium weapons, the latter remaining dangerously radioactive after exploding. It would apply less to "conventional" bombs, but even with those there are unexploded bombs lying around, and the danger of damaged buildings later collapsing. But more importantly, it seems highly self-serving and specious, not to mention exceptionally difficult, to try to paint a human face on a Tomahawk Cruise missile whose payload of a thousand pounds of TNT crashes into the center of a densely-populated city, often with depleted uranium in its warhead.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force.

The bombing list

• Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
  
• Guatemala 1954
  
• Indonesia 1958
  
• Cuba 1959-1961
  
• Guatemala 1960
  
• Congo 1964
  
• Laos 1964-73
  
• Vietnam 1961-73
  
• Cambodia 1969-70
  
• Guatemala 1967-69
  
• Grenada 1983
  
• Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
  
• Libya 1986
  
• El Salvador 1980s
  
• Nicaragua 1980s
  
• Iran 1987
  
• Panama 1989
  
• Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
  
• Kuwait 1991
  
• Somalia 1993
  
• Bosnia 1994, 1995
  
• Sudan 1998
  
• Afghanistan 1998
  
• Yugoslavia 1999
  
• Yemen 2002
  
• Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
  
• Iraq 2003-present
  
• Afghanistan 2001-present
  
• Pakistan 2007-present
  
• Somalia 2007-8, 2011
  
• Yemen 2009, 2011
  
• Libya 2011
  

Plus

Iran, April 2003 hit by US missiles during bombing of Iraq, killing at least one person
Pakistan, 2002-03 bombed by US planes several times as part of combat against the Taliban and other opponents of the US occupation of Afghanistan
China, 1999 its heavily bombed embassy in Belgrade is legally Chinese territory, and it appears rather certain that the bombing was no accident (see chapter 25)
France, 1986 After the French government refused the use of its air space to US warplanes headed for a bombing raid on Libya, the planes were forced to take another, longer route; when they reached Libya they bombed so close to the French embassy that the building was damaged and all communication links knocked out.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 13, 1985 A bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict a black organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.

Them other guys are really shocking

"We should expect conflicts in which adversaries, because of cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities." Department of Defense, 1999

The Targets

It's become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are:

1. It poses a sufficient obstacle to the desires of the American Empire;
   
2. It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.
   

The survivors

A study by the American Medical Association: "Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing":

Nearly half the bombing survivors studied had an active postdisaster psychiatric disorder, and full criteria for PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] were met by one third of the survivors. PTSD symptoms were nearly universal, especially symptoms of intrusive reexperience and hyperarousal.

Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website:

We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans.

76

Notes

• The Nation, September 26, 1994, p.304
  
• RFE/RL Newsline, April 9, 2003 (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a "private" international communications service in Europe and Asia funded by the US government.)
  
• Washington Post, January 1, 2003; Australian Broadcasting Company, January 1, 2003; Agence France Presse, September 19, 2003
  
• Associated Press, "France Confirms It Denied U.S. Jets Air Space, Says Embassy Damaged", April 15, 1986
  
• U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, "New World Coming" (Phase I Report), September 15, 1999, p.3
  
• Journal of the American Medical Association, August 25, 1999, p.761
  

[David Guyatt]

From 4th media

The House Res. 758: US Declaration of War West Ultimately Seeks To Breakup RUSSIA

Post Categories: Canada
Wayne MADSEN | Thursday, December 11, 2014, 17:17 Beijing


Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on favoritesMore Sharing Services

Print

The U.S. Congressional Declaration of War against Russia

The sixteen-page anti-Russian House Resolution 758, which was recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in an overwhelming vote, is a recipe for active U.S. military and intelligence operations against Russia.
Former U.S. Representative and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the former congressman wrote that the House resolution mirrored the neoconservative-formulated 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which was ultimately used by the George W. Bush administration to launch the U.S. attack against Saddam Hussein's government.
Out of 435 members of the House, only 10 voted against what amounted to virtual authorization for offensive operations against the Russian Federation. The lopsided 411 votes for the resolution suggests that the same Israeli Lobby that racks up similar vote totals in support of Israel and against Iran, were at work with the resolution on Russia.
Former Representative and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich joined Paul in condemning the House action, referring to the anti-Russia resolution as «tantamount to a Declaration of Cold War».
Paul was correct in stating that these sorts of resolutions, billed as non-binding «harmless statements of opinion», often lead to sanctions and war. In addition to House resolutions on Iraq, other resolutions calling for U.S. intervention have been used to justify U.S. military actions in Syria and Libya.
The ten House members who voted against HR 758 represent a small bi-partisan cadre of Republican libertarians who oppose U.S. interventionist policies around the world and Democratic progressives who also oppose the military brinkmanship with Russia advocated by the House resolution.
Republicans like Walter Jones of North Carolina, Justin Amash of Michigan, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, John Duncan of Tennessee, and paleo-conservative Dana Rohrabacher of California voted against the bill. Democrats Alan Grayson and Alcee Hastings of Florida, Jim McDermott of Washington state, Beto O'Rourke of Texas, and outgoing George Miller of California joined their Republican colleagues in casting no votes.
Going along with the majority were all the political contrivances that support the neo-conservative war agenda, from the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses, which takes their marching orders from George Soros and «Third Way» Democrats, to the Tea Party Republicans, who are financed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch and influenced by neo-conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is well known for gathering up sizeable votes, like the 411 who voted for HR 758, to back bills written by AIPAC staffers. Hastings of Florida was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote no on HR 758. His caucus colleague, the normally anti-war Maxine Waters of California, voted yes.


Not one member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus voted no on the resolution. Even the usually-progressive Democrat Raul Grijalva of Arizona voted for a resolution that de facto authorizes the United States to supply lethal military weaponry to the putschist Ukrainian regime in Kiev.
There were a few members who opted not to vote, which is a method to abstain. They included Republicans Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Gary Miller of California, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, and Rob Bishop of Utah, as well as Democrats Gloria Negrete-McLeod of California, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, Carolyn McCarthy of New York, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, and Pete Gallego of Texas.
Vermont Democrat Peter Welch, who is usually an opponent of war resolutions, voted yes. Welch receives financial support from donors associated with Soros and AIPAC.
It is clear that AIPAC teamed up with various anti-Russian groups, including the Ukrainian American Foundation, the Georgia Caucus, Estonian American National Council and the American Hungarian Foundation and other Soros-funded front groups, to ensure passage of the anti-Russia resolution.
This neo-conservative bloc, which supported the $5 billion U.S. price tag used by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and her colleague, U.S. ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt to overthrow the government of President Viktor Yanukovych, has used its influence in the past to attack Russia.
One of the behind-the-scenes lobbyists who can be relied upon the craft de facto war authorization resolutions in Congress is top John McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann.
Scheunemann's simultaneous work as the Executive Director for the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) that helped engineer the U.S. invasion of that country and his work for the congressional Georgia Caucus resulted in a U.S. foreign policy nexus that resulted in 2000 Georgian troops being dispatched to Iraq as part of the so-called «Coalition of the Willing».
In fact, Scheunemann's Orion Strategies lobbying firm, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the discredited Iraq National Congress of con artist Ahmad Chalabi all shared the same Washington, DC, address of 918 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003.



This same boiler room lobbying operation is being used to rally congressional support for further punitive actions against Russia. It is no coincidence that paragraph 22 of HR 758 specifically states, albeit falsely, that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008.
HR 758 promotes the «disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine». The resolution calls for the United States to «provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty». In other words, U.S. and NATO forces are authorized to bring military action right up to the Ukrainian-Russian border.
HR 758 represents nothing more than a foolhardy laundry list of neocon talking points often used by such media operations as Fox News, the National Review, and Newsmax to attack Russia and its government. For example, the resolution condemns Russia for providing arms to the Syrian government to fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Of course, AIPAC ensured that the point was included because Israel, for which AIPAC acts as an unregistered foreign intelligence-gathering and foreign government lobbying operation, militarily supports ISIL and its affiliated terrorist groups. Other neocon talking points in HR 758 condemn Russia for hacking into U.S. computer networks.
The National Security Agency (NSA), a hotbed for neocon activism, finds it convenient to scapegoat other nations in order to convince Congress to increase its National Cyber Command budget.
Depending on the day of the week, NSA will leak information to friendly media about cyber-attacks from Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah, Cuba, Venezuela, and any other country that runs afoul of U.S. interventionist foreign policy. The NSA has become one of the more transparent liars among U.S. government agencies when it comes to manufacturing or exaggerating cyber-threats.
Where do the neocons and Soros intend to take their anti-Russian operations? The answer is found in a 2008 statement issued by the Soros-funded and Central Intelligence Agency-linked K Street lobbying group, the Central and Eastern European Coalition (CEEC).
In 2008, CEEC stated that unless Russia withdrew from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, immediate Western recognition of the independence of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia should be granted.
It added that if that move was «insufficient for Russia to withdraw from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. . . the international community should consider recognizing the independence of other autonomous republics within the Russian Federation, such as Adygea, Altai, Buryatia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Karelia, Komi, Mari El, Mordovia, Sakha, North Ossetia, Tatarstan, Tuva, Udmurtia, Khakassia, and Chuvashia».
Russian President Vladimir Putin was spot on when he recently stated that the West ultimately seeks the break-up of the Russian Federation. The proof is found in the policy statements of CIA-linked groups like the CEEC, which is also helping to call the shots on anti-Russia congressional resolutions like 758 and sanctions policies.

[David Guyatt]

Reading between the lines of HR 758 above, it seems evident that Putin's involvement in bringing an end to NATO's intended military engagement in Syria to overthrow Assad is what has really ticked off the powers that be. There are two references to this in the resolution, that otherwise, seem quite out of place.

Let's recall that French aircraft were ready to take off on bombings missions when Obama called the French president and told him to stop the attack. We don't really know what card Putin played to halt this NATO attack, but it seems to me to have now unloosed a determination to get rid of him come what may.

[Magda Hassan]

Gorbachev would know




This article originally appeared at NBC

---

MOSCOW Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called on Wednesday for a U.S.-Russia summit to be convened to prevent a deep freeze in Moscow's relations with the West over the Ukraine crisis.
Gorbachev, whose policy of "perestroika" played a role in ending the Cold War, warned of potentially dire consequences if tensions were not reduced.




"This is extremely dangerous, with tensions as high as they are now. We may not live through these days: someone could lose their nerve," he wrote in a commentary entitled "To Unfreeze Relations" for government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta. "I suggest the leaders of Russia and the United States think about holding a summit with a broad agenda, without preliminary conditions. One needn't be afraid of 'losing face', that someone will gain a propaganda victory: this should all belong to the past. One needs to think about the future."

The diplomatic standoff over Ukraine is the worst between Moscow and the West since the Cold War ended more than two decades ago. The United States, NATO and the European Union accuse Russia of sending troops and weapons to support a separatist uprising in eastern Ukraine, and have imposed sanctions on Moscow. Russia denies providing the rebels with military support and fends off Western criticism of its annexation of Crimea in March, saying the Crimean people voted for it in a referendum.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/12/1815

[Magda Hassan]

25 Years Ago: at the Malta Summit Gorbachev Signed the Biggest Capitulation Act in Mankind's History

25 years ago, on December 2-3, 1989, at the Malta summit (which was actually taking place on military ships), Gorbachev signed off the then finalized capitulation, which surrendered USSR-led socialism, the whole of Eastern Europe, the world socialist system, and the USSR itself as well (the subsequent developments were only an elaboration and filling in the details). As Andrey Fursov argues, this historical, epoch-making surrender was being prepared for decades within the Soviet establishment and its realization started in the 1970s. Fursov also notes that, for signing the capitulation act, Gorbachev came to Malta via Vatican where his Judas act was blessed by the Polish Pope.
What happened 25 years ago also helped to set the stage for the current comeback of Nazi Banderism in Ukraine and the Ukrainian war, which has a chance to escalate, widen, and explode.
And the Empire started to morph into a Fourth Reich.

***

Post scriptum:


Gorbachev now wants to save the world (again) from war and, most likely, from Russia too, as he did in the late 1980s and the early 1990s in order to make the world and the US safe again for the New World Order:
Gorbachev declared that, in order to save the world from a looming big war, the form of relationship, which he had with the US in the late 1980s, ought to be resumed with him "ready to join the rebuilding process." To this effect, "he was [already] approached by several influential people from the U.S," by which he means Us "influential veterans," apparently his old buddies. Moreover, he made it very clear that by "the rebuilding process," he not only means a repeat of his "perestroika" in relation to Russia, with him playing a notable role again, but that by "rebuilding" he also means "building a New World Order."
And Gorbachev would like to help--by helping to lead this process.
http://vladimirsuchan.blogspot.com.au/20...achev.html

[Magda Hassan]

While no one in Russia will give Gorbachev the time of day, nor should they, even though the west loves him, I do hope Russians are listening to Putin. This is an historic speech and while the moral pygmies of the US were producing their hateful and hypocritical House Resolution 758 posted below Putin was talking sanely to Russia and the world. Not covered by the western media propaganda outlets in any meaningful way. Of course. Not a fan of Russian capitalist oligarchs but he is our best chance for peace in this world. It wont come from the current crop of Western flunkeys.

A Must Read --- and then weep at the breath-taking hypocrisy of it (the linked version is easier to read btw).

Text of House Resolution 758.

Whereas they're still blaming Russia for the shoot down of MH17.

Whereas lies and propaganda are dressed as the truth and voted on.

I can't even begin to enumerate how absolutely deceitful this resolution is. There's just so much of it.

Text of Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression ...

...of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.
This simple resolution was agreed to on December 4, 2014. That is the end of the legislative process for a simple resolution. The text of the bill below is as of Dec 4, 2014 (Passed the House (Engrossed)).

Download PDF
Source: GPO



H. RES. 758
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 4, 2014
RESOLUTION
Whereas the Russian Federation has subjected Ukraine to a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression for the purpose of establishing its domination over the country and progressively erasing its independence;Whereas the Russian Federation's invasion of, and military operations on, Ukrainian territory represent gross violations of Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity and a violation of international law, including the Russian Federation's obligations under the United Nations Charter;Whereas the Russian Federation has, since February 2014, violated each of the 10 principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords in its relations with Ukraine;Whereas the Russian Federation's forcible occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing support for separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine are violations of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which it pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine;Whereas the Russian Federation has provided military equipment, training, and other assistance to separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine that has resulted in over 4,000 civilian deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees, and widespread destruction;Whereas the Ukrainian military remains at a significant disadvantage compared to the armed forces of the Russian Federation in terms of size and technological sophistication;Whereas the United States strongly supports efforts to assist Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty against military aggression by the Russian Federation and by separatist forces;Whereas the terms of the cease-fire specified in the Minsk Protocol that was signed on September 5, 2014, by representatives of the Government of Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the Russian-led separatists in the eastern area of Ukraine have been repeatedly violated by the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports;Whereas separatist forces in areas they controlled in eastern Ukraine prevented the holding of elections on May 25, 2014, for a new President of Ukraine and on October 26, 2014, for a new Rada, thereby preventing the people of eastern Ukraine from exercising their democratic right to select their candidates for office in free and fair elections;Whereas on November 2, 2014, separatist forces in eastern Ukraine held fraudulent and illegal elections in areas they controlled for the supposed purpose of choosing leaders of the illegitimate local political entities they have declared;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to provide the military, political, and economic support without which the separatist forces could not continue to maintain their areas of control;Whereas the reestablishment of peace and security in Ukraine requires the full withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, the resumption of the Government of Ukraine's control over all of the country's international borders, the disarming of the separatist and paramilitary forces in the east, an end to Russia's use of its energy exports and trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs;Whereas Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, was destroyed by a missile fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in the loss of 298 innocent lives;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to supply the vast majority of arms purchases, which include anti-aircraft missile systems and other lethal weapons, to the Bashar Assad regime in Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism that is actively backed by Hezbollah, a sophisticated terrorist group hostile to the United States and its close allies;Whereas the Russian Federation has protected the Assad regime and backed its brutal assault against the Syrian people;Whereas the Russian Federation has used and is continuing to use coercive economic measures, including the manipulation of energy prices and supplies, as well as trade restrictions, to place political and economic pressure on Ukraine;Whereas France agreed to sell to the Russian Federation two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships in 2011 for $1.7 billion;Whereas Russian possession of these ships would be a destabilizing addition to the Russian military, which would likely have boosted its ability to invade Crimea;Whereas given the Russian invasion of sovereign territory of the Republic of Ukraine in Crimea and elsewhere and its dangerous behavior throughout the region, France decided to suspend delivery of the Mistral-class warships to the Russian Federation;Whereas purchase of the two Mistral-class warships by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries would expand NATO's capabilities, resolve France's legitimate concern over the cost of the ships, and eliminate a potential threat to countries in Eastern Europe; Whereas the Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Georgia in August 2008, continues to station military forces in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and is implementing measures intended to progressively integrate these regions into the Russian Federation, including by signing a treatybetween Georgia's Abkhazia Region and the Russian Federation on November 24, 2014;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to subject the Republic of Georgia to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the country and to prevent Georgia from establishing closer relations with the European Union and the United States;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to station military forces in the Transniestria region of Moldova in violation of the express will of the Government of Moldova and of its Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) commitments;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to provide support to the illegal separatist regime in the Transniestria region of Moldova;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to subject Moldova to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the country and to prevent efforts by Moldova to establish closer relations with the European Union and the United States;Whereas the Russian Federation acceded to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty obligation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a declaration issued at Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in October 1992; Whereas under the terms of the INF Treaty, a flight-test or deployment of any INF-banned weapon delivery vehicle by the Russian Federation constitutes a militarily significant violation of the INF Treaty;Whereas on April 2, 2014, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Breedlove, stated that, A weapon capability that violates the INF, that is introduced into the greater European land mass is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with * * *. I would not judge how the alliance will choose to react, but I would say they will have to consider what to do about it * * *. It can't go unanswered.;Whereas on July 29, 2014, the United States Department of State released its report on the Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, as required by Section 403 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, for calendar year 2013, which found that, [t]he United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles;Whereas concerns also exist with respect to a new Russian ballistic missile, the RS26, which, according to reports, has been tested on multiple occasions at intermediate ranges, and in different configurations, which would be covered by the interpretative statements the United States Senate relied upon when it ratified the INF Treaty in May 1988;Whereas the Russian Federation has requested the approval of new sensors and new aircraft to be flown over the United States and Europe as part of the Treaty on Open Skies, and serious concerns have been raised regarding impacts to United States national security if such approval is given;Whereas on November 11, 2014, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Breedlove, stated that, Russian forces capable of being nuclear are being moved to the Crimea Peninsula;Whereas according to reports, the Government of the Russian Federation has repeatedly engaged in the infiltration of, and attacks on, computer networks of the United States Government, as well as individuals and private entities, for the purpose of illicitly acquiring information and disrupting operations, including by supporting Russian individuals and entities engaged in these actions;Whereas the political, military, and economic aggression against Ukraine and other countries by the Russian Federation underscores the enduring importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the cornerstone of collective Euro-Atlantic defense;Whereas the United States reaffirms its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5 which states that an armed attack against one or more of the treaty signatories shall be considered an attack against them all;Whereas the Russian Federation is continuing to use its supply of energy as a means of political and economic coercion against Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other European countries;Whereas the United States strongly supports energy diversification initiatives in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other European countries to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its supply of energy for political and economic coercion, including the development of domestic sources of energy, increased efficiency, and substituting Russian energy resources with imports from other countries;Whereas the Russian Federation continues to conduct an aggressive propaganda effort in Ukraine in which false information is used to subvert the authority of the legitimate national government, undermine stability, promote ethnic dissension, and incite violence;Whereas the Russian Federation has expanded the presence of its state-sponsored media in national languages across central and western Europe with the intent of using news and information to distort public opinion and obscure Russian political and economic influence in Europe;Whereas expanded efforts by United States international broadcasting across all media in the Russian and Ukrainian languages are needed to counter Russian propaganda and to provide the people of Ukraine and the surrounding regions with access to credible and balanced information;Whereas the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated continue to represent a minority market share in Ukraine and other regional states with significant ethno-linguistic Russian populations who increasingly obtain their local and international news from Russian state-sponsored media outlets;Whereas the United States International Programming to Ukraine and Neighboring Regions Act of 2014 (Public Law 11396) requires the Voice of America and RFE/RL, Incorporated to provide programming content to target populations in Ukraine and Moldova 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including at least 8 weekly hours of total original video and television content and 14 weekly hours of total audio content while expanding cooperation with local media outlets and deploying greater content through multimedia platforms and mobile devices; andWhereas Vladimir Putin has established an increasingly authoritarian regime in the Russian Federation through fraudulent elections, the persecution and jailing of political opponents, the elimination of independent media, the seizure of key sectors of the economy and enabling supporters to enrich themselves through widespread corruption, and implementing a strident propaganda campaign to justify Russian aggression against other countries and repression in Russia, among other actions: Now, therefore, be itThat the House of Representatives(1)strongly supports the efforts by President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine to establish a lasting peace in their country that includes the full withdrawal of Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine, full control of Ukraine's international borders, the disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, the adoption of policies to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use energy exports and trade barriers as weapons to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of Ukraine; (2)affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention, and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples; (3)condemns the continuing political, economic, and military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and the continuing violation of their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity; (4)states that the military intervention by the Russian Federation in Ukraine(A)is in breach of its obligations under the United Nations Charter;(B)is in clear violation of each of the 10 principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords;©is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which it pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine; and(D)poses a threat to international peace and security;(5)calls on the Russian Federation to reverse its illegal annexation of Crimea, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine; (6)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to refuse to recognize any de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its territorial waters; (7)calls on the Russian Federation to remove its military forces and military equipment from the territory of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and to end its political, military, and economic support of separatist forces;(8)calls on the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports and controls in Ukraine to end their violations of the cease-fire announced in Minsk on September 5, 2014; (9)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to impose visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions, and other measures on the Russian Federation and its leadership with the goal of compelling it to end its violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, to remove its military forces and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and to end its support of separatist and paramilitary forces;(10)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty;(11)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with appropriate intelligence and other relevant information in a timely manner to assist the Government of Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty; (12)calls on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and United States partners in Europe and other nations around the world to suspend all military cooperation with Russia, including prohibiting the sale to the Russian Government of lethal and non-lethal military equipment;(13)reaffirms the commitment of the United States to its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5, and calls on all Alliance member states to provide their full share of the resources needed to ensure their collective defense; (14)urges the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies;(15)welcomes the decision of France to indefinitely suspend the delivery of the Mistral-class warships to the Russian Federation and urges the United States, France, NATO, and other partners to engage in consultations and consider all alternative acquisition options for such warships which would not include transfer of the ships to the Russian Federation;(16)urges the President to publicly hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to take action to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance with the Treaty;(17)urges the President to work with Asian, European, and other allies to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure the Russian Federation is not able to gain any benefit by its development of military systems that violate the INF Treaty;(18)believes the emplacement by the Russian Federation of its nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory would constitute a provocative and destabilizing move; (19)calls on Ukraine and other countries to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its energy exports as a means of applying political or economic pressure, including by promoting energy efficiency and reverse natural gas flows from Western Europe, and calls on the United States to promote increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency;(20)calls on the President and the United States Department of State to develop a strategy for multilateral coordination to produce or otherwise procure and distribute news and information in the Russian language to countries with significant Russian-speaking populations which maximizes the use of existing platforms for content delivery such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated, leverages indigenous public-private partnerships for content production, and seeks in-kind contributions from regional state governments;(21)calls on the United States Department of State to identify positions at key diplomatic posts in Europe to evaluate the political, economic, and cultural influence of Russia and Russian state-sponsored media and to coordinate with host governments on appropriate responses;(22)calls on the Russian Federation to cease its support for the Assad regime in Syria;(23)calls on the President to publicly and privately demand the Russian Federation cease its destabilizing behavior at every opportunity and in every engagement between the United States and its officials and the Russian Federation and its officials; (24)calls upon the Russian Federation to seek a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries and their right to freely determine their future, including their relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries; and(25)calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.

[QUOTE]

President Putin's 2014 Federal Assembly Address

"Talking To Russia From A Position Of Force Is An Exercise In Futility"

Video and Transcript

Russian President Vladimir Putin is addressing the Federal Assembly - both houses of parliament, the cabinet and other dignitaries - outlining his stance on his policies for the coming year.

Posted December 04, 2014

Vladimir Putin delivered the annual Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly. The Address was traditionally delivered at the Kremlin's St George Hall before an audience of over 1,000 people.
In his Address, the President set out his views on the situation in Ukraine and outlined Russia's position with regard to events taking place there. In the foreign policy section of the Address, Mr Putin also spoke about international security issues and the integration processes taking place in the world.
On the subject of Russia's economic strategy, the President said that Russia is open to the world, to investment and to carrying out projects together, but ultimately, Russia's development depends above all on the country's own efforts. Mr Putin named development of new technology and competitive goods, giving the country's industry and financial sector a more solid foundation, and training the needed personnel as priority tasks.
The President also talked about relations between the state and business, in particular the need to free up the environment for doing business as much as possible and the concrete steps that can be taken to achieve this. Mr Putin proposed that no changes be made to the current tax rules for the next four years, and also proposed an amnesty for capital returning to Russia.
The President set the goal of reaching growth rates above the world average within the next 3-4 years.
Mr Putin also set objectives in the financial sector, agribusiness, and the banking sector, and declared the need to free Russia from dependence on foreign technology. Import substitution is a long term strategy, the President said, and is a goal for Russia regardless of the situation with sanctions. Mr Putin also gave the main target figures for Russian exports and investment levels.
The President proposed implementing a national technology initiative that will involve forecasting the technology needs required to guarantee Russia's national security and ensure high living standards and economic development over the coming 10-15 years.
The President also spoke about demography, healthcare and education.
In his concluding section, Mr Putin focused on the dialogue between the state authorities and the public and the need to raise civic activeness and Russia's civil society potential.
The ceremony was attended by members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, members of the Government, heads of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, heads of the constituent entities, chairpersons of regional legislative assemblies, heads of Russia's traditional faiths, public figures, including heads of regional civic chamber, and executives of Russia's major media outlets.
* * *
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Citizens of Russia, members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma,
Today's address will be related to the current situation and conditions, as well as the tasks we are facing. But before delivering it I'd like to thank all of you for the support, unity and solidarity you have shown during the landmark events that will seriously influence the future of our country.
This year we faced trials that only a mature and united nation and a truly sovereign and strong state can withstand. Russia has proved that it can protect its compatriots and defend truth and fairness.
Russia has done this thanks to its citizens, thanks to your work and the results we have achieved together, and thanks to our profound understanding of the essence and importance of national interests. We have become aware of the indivisibility and integrity of the thousand-year long history of our country. We have come to believe in ourselves, to believe that we can do much and achieve every goal.
Of course, we will talk about this year's landmark events. You know that a referendum was held in Crimea in March, at which its residents clearly expressed their desire to join Russia. After that, the Crimean parliament it should be stressed that it was a legitimate parliament that was elected back in 2010 adopted a resolution on sovereignty. And then we saw the historical reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia.
It was an event of special significance for the country and the people, because Crimea is where our people live, and the peninsula is of strategic importance for Russia as the spiritual source of the development of a multifaceted but solid Russian nation and a centralised Russian state. It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity to Rus.
In addition to ethnic similarity, a common language, common elements of their material culture, a common territory, even though its borders were not marked then, and a nascent common economy and government, Christianity was a powerful spiritual unifying force that helped involve various tribes and tribal unions of the vast Eastern Slavic world in the creation of a Russian nation and Russian state. It was thanks to this spiritual unity that our forefathers for the first time and forevermore saw themselves as a united nation. All of this allows us to say that Crimea, the ancient Korsun or Chersonesus, and Sevastopol have invaluable civilisational and even sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for the followers of Islam and Judaism.
And this is how we will always consider it.
Dear friends,
We cannot fail to mention today our perspective on the developments in Ukraine and how we intend to work with our partners around the world.
It is well known that Russia not only supported Ukraine and other brotherly republics of the former Soviet Union in their aspirations to sovereignty, but also facilitated this process greatly in the 1990s. Since then, our position has remained unchanged.
Every nation has an inalienable sovereign right to determine its own development path, choose allies and political regimes, create an economy and ensure its security. Russia has always respected these rights and always will. This fully applies to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.
It is true that we condemned the government coup and the forceful takeover of power in Kiev in February of this year. The developments we are currently witnessing in Ukraine and the tragedy unfolding in the country's southeast prove that we were right to take such a stand.
How did it all begin? I will have to remind you what happened back then. It is hard to believe that it all started with a technical decision by President Yanukovych to postpone the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. Make no mistake, he did not refuse to sign the document, but only postponed it in order to make some adjustments.
As you recall, this move was fully in line with the constitutional authority vested upon an absolutely legitimate and internationally recognised head of state.
Against this background, there was no way we could support this armed coup, the violence and the killings. Just take the bloody events in Odessa, where people were burned alive. How can the subsequent attempts to suppress people in Ukraine's southeast, who oppose this mayhem, be supported? I reiterate that there was no way we could endorse these developments. What's more, they were followed by hypocritical statements on the protection of international law and human rights. This is just cynical. I strongly believe that the time will come when the Ukrainian people will deliver a just assessment of these developments.
How did the dialogue on this issue begin between Russia and its American and European partners? I mentioned our American friends for a reason, since they are always influencing Russia's relations with its neighbours, either openly or behind the scenes. Sometimes it is even unclear whom to talk to: to the governments of certain countries or directly with their American patrons and sponsors.
As I mentioned, in the case of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, there was no dialogue at all. We were told that it was none of our business or, to put it simply, we were told where to go.
All the arguments that Russia and Ukraine are members of the CIS free-trade zone, that we have deep-rooted cooperation in industry and agriculture, and basically share the same infrastructure no one wanted to hear these arguments, let alone take them into account.
Our response was to say: fine, if you do not want to have a dialogue with us, we will have to protect our legitimate interests unilaterally and will not pay for what we view as erroneous policy.
So what's came out of it all? The agreement between Ukraine and the European Union has been signed and ratified, but the implementation of the provisions regarding trade and economy has been postponed until the end of next year. Doesn't this mean that we were the ones who were actually right?
There is also a question of why all this was done in Ukraine? What was the purpose of the government coup? Why shoot and keep shooting and killing people? In fact, the economy, finance and the social sector were destroyed and the country ruined.
What Ukraine currently needs is economic assistance in carrying out reforms, not petty politics and pompous empty promises. However, our Western colleagues don't seem eager to provide such assistance, while the Kiev authorities are not willing to address the challenges their people are facing.
By the way, Russia has already made a major contribution to helping Ukraine. Let me reiterate that Russian banks already invested some $25 billion in Ukraine. Last year, Russia's Finance Ministry extended a loan worth another $3 billion. Gazprom provided another $5.5 billion to Ukraine and even offered a discount that no one promised, requiring the country to pay $4.5 billion. Add it all up and you get as much as $ 32.5-33.5 billion that were provided only recently.
Of course, we have the right to ask questions. What was this Ukrainian tragedy for? Wasn't it possible to settle all the issues, even disputed issues, through dialogue, within a legal framework and legitimately?
But now we are being told that this was actually competent, balanced politics that we should comply with unquestionably and blindfolded.
This will never happen.
If for some European countries national pride is a long-forgotten concept and sovereignty is too much of a luxury, true sovereignty for Russia is absolutely necessary for survival.
Primarily, we should realise this as a nation. I would like to emphasise this: either we remain a sovereign nation, or we dissolve without a trace and lose our identity. Of course, other countries need to understand this, too. All participants in international life should be aware of this. And they should use this understanding to strengthen the role and the importance of international law, which we've talked about so much lately, rather than bend its standards to suit someone's strategic interests contrary to its fundamental principles and common sense, considering everyone else to be poorly educated people who can't read or write.
It is imperative to respect the legitimate interests of all the participants in international dialogue. Only then, not with guns, missiles or combat aircraft, but precisely with the rule of law will we reliably protect the world against bloody conflict. Only then, will there be no need to scare anyone with imaginary self-deceptive isolation, or sanctions, which are, of course, damaging, but damaging to everyone, including those who initiate them.
Speaking of the sanctions, they are not just a knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the United States or its allies to our position regarding the events and the coup in Ukraine, or even the so-called Crimean Spring. I'm sure that if these events had never happened I want to point this out specifically for you as politicians sitting in this auditorium if none of that had ever happened, they would have come up with some other excuse to try to contain Russia's growing capabilities, affect our country in some way, or even take advantage of it.
The policy of containment was not invented yesterday. It has been carried out against our country for many years, always, for decades, if not centuries. In short, whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong or independent, these tools are quickly put into use.
However, talking to Russia from a position of force is an exercise in futility, even when it was faced with domestic hardships, as in the 1990s and early 2000s.
We remember well how and who, almost openly, supported separatism back then and even outright terrorism in Russia, referred to murderers, whose hands were stained with blood, none other than rebels and organised high-level receptions for them. These "rebels" showed up in Chechnya again. I'm sure the local guys, the local law enforcement authorities, will take proper care of them. They are now working to eliminate another terrorist raid. Let's support them.
Let me reiterate, we remember high-level receptions for terrorists dubbed as fighters for freedom and democracy. Back then, we realised that the more ground we give and the more excuses we make, the more our opponents become brazen and the more cynical and aggressive their demeanour becomes.
Despite our unprecedented openness back then and our willingness to cooperate in all, even the most sensitive issues, despite the fact that we considered and all of you are aware of this and remember it our former adversaries as close friends and even allies, the support for separatism in Russia from across the pond, including information, political and financial support and support provided by the special services was absolutely obvious and left no doubt that they would gladly let Russia follow the Yugoslav scenario of disintegration and dismemberment. With all the tragic fallout for the people of Russia.
It didn't work. We didn't allow that to happen.
Just as it did not work for Hitler with his people-hating ideas, who set out to destroy Russia and push us back beyond the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended.
Next year, we will mark the 70[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Our Army crushed the enemy and liberated Europe. However, we should not forget about the bitter defeats in 1941 and 1942 so as not to repeat the mistakes in the future.
In this context, I will touch on an international security issue. There are many issues related to this. These include the fight against terrorism. We still encounter its manifestations, and of course, we will participate in the joint efforts to counter terrorism on the international level. Of course, we will work together to deal with other challenges, such as the spread of infectious diseases.
However, in this case I would like to speak about the most serious and sensitive issue: international security. Since 2002, after the US unilaterally pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was absolutely a cornerstone of international security, a strategic balance of forces and stability, the US has been working relentlessly to create a global missile defence system, including in Europe. This poses a threat not only to Russia, but to the world as a whole precisely due to the possible disruption of this strategic balance of forces.
I believe that this is bad for the US as well, because it creates the dangerous illusion of invulnerability. It strengthens the striving for unilateral, often, as we can see, ill-considered decisions and additional risks.
We have said much about this. I will not go into details now. I will only say this. Maybe I am repeating myself. We have no intention to become involved in a costly arms race, but at the same time we will reliably and dependably guarantee our country's defence in the new conditions. There are absolutely no doubts about this. This will be done. Russia has both the capability and the innovative solutions for this.
No one will ever attain military superiority over Russia. We have a modern and combat ready army. As they now put it, a polite, but formidable army. We have the strength, will and courage to protect our freedom.
We will protect the diversity of the world. We will tell the truth to people abroad, so that everyone can see the real and not distorted and false image of Russia. We will actively promote business and humanitarian relations, as well as scientific, education and cultural relations. We will do this even if some governments attempt to create a new iron curtain around Russia.
We will never enter the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and the search for enemies.
All this is evidence of weakness, while we are strong and confident.
Our goal is to have as many equal partners as possible, both in the West and in the East. We will expand our presence in those regions where integration is on the rise, where politics is not mixed with economy, and where obstacles to trade, to exchange of technology and investment and to the free movement of people are lifted.
Under no conditions will we curtail our relations with Europe or America. At the same time, we will restore and expand our traditional ties with South America. We will continue our cooperation with Africa and the Middle East.
We see how quickly Asia Pacific has been developing over the past few decades. As a Pacific power, Russia will use this huge potential comprehensively.
Everyone knows the leaders and the drivers of global economic development. Many of them are our sincere friends and strategic partners.
The Eurasian Economic Union will start working in full on January 1, 2015. I'd like to remind you about its fundamental principles. The topmost principles are equality, pragmatism and mutual respect, as well as the preservation of national identity and state sovereignty of its member countries. I am confident that strong cooperation will become a powerful source of development for all of the Eurasian Economic Union members.
To conclude this part of my address, I'd like to say once again that our priorities are healthy families and a healthy nation, the traditional values which we inherited from our forefathers, combined with a focus on the future, stability as a vital condition of development and progress, respect for other nations and states, and the guaranteed security of Russia and the protection of its legitimate interests.
Dear friends,
To be able to implement all our plans and to meet the basic social commitments set forth in the presidential executive orders of May 2012, we must decide what we will do in the economy, finance and social spheres. But most importantly, we must choose a strategy.
I repeat that Russia will be open to the world, cooperation, foreign investment and joint projects. But we must above all see that our development depends primarily on us.
We will only succeed if we work towards prosperity and affluence, rather than hope for an opening or a favourable situation on foreign markets.
We will succeed if we defeat disorder, irresponsibility and our habit of burying good decisions in red tape. I want everyone to understand that in today's world this is not simply an obstacle to Russia's development but a direct threat to its security.
The period ahead will be complex and difficult, when much will depend on what each one of us do at our workplaces. The so-called sanctions and foreign restrictions are an incentive for a more efficient and faster movement towards our goals.
There is much we need to do. We need to create new technologies, a competitive environment and an additional margin of strength in the industries, the financial system and in the training of personnel. We have a large domestic market and natural resources, capital and research projects for this. We also have talented, intelligent and diligent people who can learn very quickly.
The most important thing now is to give the people an opportunity for self-fulfilment. Freedom for development in the economic and social spheres, for public initiatives is the best possible response both to any external restrictions and to our domestic problems. The more actively people become involved in organising their own lives, the more independent they are, both economically and politically, and the greater Russia's potential.
In this context, I will cite one quote: "He who loves Russia should wish freedom for it; above all, freedom for Russia as such, for its international independence and self-sufficiency; freedom for Russia as a unity of Russian and all other ethnic cultures; and finally, freedom for the Russian people, freedom for all of us: freedom of faith, of the search for truth, creativity, work, and property." Ivan Ilyin. This makes a lot of sense and offers a good guideline for all of us today.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Conscientious work, private property, the freedom of enterprise these are the same kind of fundamental conservative values as patriotism, and respect for the history, traditions, and culture of one's country.
We all want the same thing: wellbeing for Russia. So the relations between business and the state should be built on the philosophy of a common cause, partnership, and equal dialogue.
Naturally, responsibility and compliance with the law and obligations are essential in the business world, as it is in other areas of life. And this is exactly how the overwhelming, absolute majority of our business people work. They value their business and social reputation. Like genuine patriots, they want to be a benefit to Russia. These are the kind of people to look to, providing conditions for their productive work.
This is not the first time we are speaking about the need for new approaches to the activities of oversight, supervisory, and law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, things are changing very slowly here. The presumption of guilt is still very much alive. Instead of curbing individual violations, they close the path and create problems for thousands of law-abiding, self-motivated people.
It is essential to lift restrictions on business as much as possible, free it from intrusive supervision and control. I said intrusive supervision and control. I will consider this in more detail later. I propose the following measures in this regard.
Every inspection should become public. Next year, a special register will be launched, with information on what agency has initiated an inspection, for what purpose, and what results it has produced. This will make it possible to stop unwarranted and, worse still, paid to order' visits from oversight agencies. This problem is extremely relevant not only for business, but also for the public sector, municipal institutions and social NGOs.
Finally, it's crucial to abandon the basic principle of total, endless control. The situation should be monitored where there are real risks or signs of transgression. You see, even when we have already done something with regard to restrictions, and these restrictions seem to be working well, there are so many inspection agencies that if every one of them comes at least once, then that's it, the company would just fold. In 2015, the Government should make all the necessary decisions to switch to this system, a system of restrictions with regard to reviews and inspections.
Concerning small business, I propose establishing holidays from inspections'. If a company has acquired a good reputation and if there have not been any serious charges against it for three years, then for the next three years it should be exempted from routine inspections by government or municipal supervisory agencies. Of course, this does not apply to emergencies, when there is a danger to people's health and life.
Business people talk about the need for stable legislation and predictable rules, including taxes. I completely agree with this. I propose to freeze the existing tax parameters as they are for the next four years, not revisit the matter again, not change them.
Meanwhile, it is important to implement the decisions that have already been made to ease the tax burden. First of all, for those who are just setting up their operations. As we have agreed, two-year tax holidays will be provided to small businesses registering for the first time. Production facilities that are starting from scratch will be entitled to the same exemptions.
Another thing. I propose a full amnesty for capital returning to Russia. I stress, full amnesty.
Of course, it is essential to explain to the people who will make these decisions what full amnesty means. It means that if a person legalises his holdings and property in Russia, he will receive firm legal guarantees that he will not be summoned to various agencies, including law enforcement agencies, that they will not "put the squeeze" on him, that he will not be asked about the sources of his capital and methods of its acquisition, that he will not be prosecuted or face administrative liability, and that he will not be questioned by the tax service or law enforcement agencies. Let's do this now, but only once. Everyone who wants to come to Russia should be given this opportunity.
We all understand that the sources of assets are different, that they were earned or acquired in various ways. However, I am confident that we should finally close, turn the "offshore page" in the history of our economy and our country. It is very important and necessary to do this.
I expect that after the well-known events in Cyprus and with the on-going sanctions campaign, our business has finally realised that its interests abroad are not reckoned with and that it can even be fleeced like a sheep.
And that the best possible guarantee is national jurisdiction, even with all of its problems. We will continue to deal with those problems with conviction, together with our business community, of course.
Russia has already made significant headway in improving its business climate. A new legislative framework has for the most part been developed on the federal level. Now the focus should be shifted to the quality of law enforcement, promoting so called best practices in the regions in partnership with business, using the national investment climate ratings to this end. From next year, the ratings system will be introduced in all the regions. We will review the progress at a State Council meeting without fail.
We need properly developed construction sites and transport infrastructure in order to be able to expand businesses and accommodate new production sites. Our regions must focus on fixing regional and local roads. To enable them to do so, we have introduced additional sources for regional road funds. Overall, we should seek to double the volume of road construction across Russia.
Of course, what I have just said has been verified by the relevant government agencies. They all confirmed that this is a feasible project. We'll be expecting to see the results of your work, colleagues.
In 2015, we will launch a programme to reimburse the regions' expenses involved in creating technology parks. I hope that the regions will make good use of this opportunity to develop their own industrial capacity. These additional measures are being taken in order to support economic and industrial growth in strategically important Russian regions.
The law on a special economic zone in Crimea has been adopted. Favourable conditions will be created here for businesses, agriculture and tourism, manufacturing industries and maritime transport, including taxation, customs and other procedures.
As you may be aware, customs preferences for Kaliningrad Region will expire in 2016. It is imperative that alternative measures to support this region, which have already been prepared, be implemented in order to maintain a comfortable entrepreneurial climate.
I'd like to ask the Government to complete this work as soon as possible. I'd also like to ask the deputies not to delay their review of the law on priority development areas (PDA).
In addition, I propose extending PDA regulations to new projects in a number of single-industry cities with the most difficult socioeconomic situations, rather than waiting three years, as provided by the draft law (I believe it has passed its first reading). Instead, we should amend it and start working on single-industry cities right away.
Of course, PDAs should play a key role in developing the Russian Far East. We have announced ambitious plans for developing this region, and we will, of course, implement them. I'd like to ask the Government to consider recapitalising the Far East Development Fund. We can allocate a portion of federal tax increments, which will be obtained from new businesses opening in the region, for these purposes.
[FONT

[Magda Hassan]

A great article by Michael Hudson.

Backfired!
U.S. New Cold War Policy Has Backfired And Created Its Worst Nightmare

By Michael Hudson
December 11, 2014 "ICH" - 1. The world's geopolitics, major trade patterns and military alliances have changed radically in the past month. Russia has re-oriented its gas and oil trade, and also its trade in military technology, away from Europe toward Eurasia.
The result is the opposite of America's hope for the past half-century of dividing and conquering Eurasia: setting Russia against China, isolating Iran, and preventing India, the Near East and other Asian countries from joining together to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar area. American sanctions and New Cold War policy has driven these Asian countries together in association with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative to NATO, and in the BRICS moves to avoid dealing with the dollar area, the IMF and World Bank austerity programs.
Regarding Europe, America's insistence that it join the New Cold War by imposing sanctions on Russia and blocking Russian gas and oil exports has aggravated the Eurozone's economic austerity, making it even more of a Dead Zone. This week a group of Germany's leading politicians, diplomats and cultural celebrities wrote an open letter to Angela Merkel protesting her pro-U.S. anti-Russian policy. By overplaying its hand, the United States is in danger of driving Europe out of the U.S. economic orbit.
Turkey already is moving out of the U.S.-European orbit, by turning to Russia for its energy needs. Iran also has moved into an alliance with Russia. Instead of the Obama administration's neocons dividing and conquering as they had planned, they are isolating America from Europe and Asia. Yet there has been almost no recognition of this in the U.S. press, despite its front-page discussion throughout Europe and Asia. Instead of breaking up the BRICS, the dollar area is coming undone.
This week, President Putin is going to India to negotiate a gas and arms deal. Last week he was in Turkey diverting what was to be the South Stream pipeline away from southern Europe to Turkey. And Turkey is becoming an associate of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization integrating the BRICS in a defensive alliance against the United States, now that it is obvious that it has no chance of joining the EU.
A few months earlier, Russia announced the largest oil and gas trade and pipeline investment ever, with China along with a transfer of missile defense technology.
2. There has been almost no discussion of this vast geopolitical realignment in the U.S. media, largely because it represents a defeat for the New Cold War policy pushed by the neocons over the past year, ever since Russia convinced President Obama not to go to war in Syria, which had been a neocon military aim.
Their response was to isolate Russia and economically attack its trade and hence balance-of-payments strength: its gas and oil trade with Europe. Last February, U.S. diplomats engineered a Pinochet-style coup d'état in Ukraine, and used this as a lever to reverse Europe's buildup of trade with Russia.
The aim was to punish Russia's economy and in the process to press for a regime change against Putin, putting in place a more pro-U.S., neoliberal Yeltsin-style regime by causing a financial crisis.
The assumption underlying this policy was that since the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, Russia was turning toward Europe to re-integrate its economy and society. And Europe for its part sought to make Russia its main energy supplier of oil as well as gas, through new pipelines being built to circumvent Ukraine. Northstream ran via the North Sea to northern Europe. Southstream was to be built via Bulgaria and Serbia to southern Europe mainly Italy and Austria.
Germany for its part looked to Russia as an export market, to earn the rubles to pay for Russian gas and oil. Other European countries stepped up their agricultural trade with Russia, and France agreed to build the enormous Mistral aircraft carrier. In short, the ending of the Cold War promised to bring a much closer economic and hence political integration of Russia with Europe cemented largely by a gas pipeline network.
3. U.S. Cold Warriors have tried to disrupt this trade. The plan was to isolate Russia and lock Europe into the U.S. economy. The dream was to export U.S. shale gas to Europe, squeezing out Russia and thereby hurting its balance of payments.
This was always a pipedream. But what U.S. heavy-handed military confrontation with Russia really has done is to drive a political wedge between the United States and Europe. Last week, Putin gave a speech saying he found little point in negotiating with European politicians, because they simply followed U.S. orders via NATO and by U.S. pressure on German politicians, French politicians and other European politicians.
In following U.S. New Cold War confrontation, Europe has been acting against its own economic interests. Its neoliberal Third Energy law has effectively blocked Russia from having any economic gain in selling more gas to Europe.
4. Rentier pipeline politics
The U.S. neoliberal plan has been to insist on non-Russian control of the pipelines that would carry Russian gas and oil to Europe. The idea is to use this pipeline as a tollbooth to siphon off the revenue that Russia had hoped to receive from Europe.
Here's the best way to understand what has occurred. Imagine that the United States had a law that owners of buildings could not also own the elevators in them. This would mean that the owners of the Empire State Building, for instance, could not own their elevators. Some other investors could buy the elevators, and then tell the building's renters or other occupants that they would have to pay a fee each time they rode up to the 40th floor, the 50th floor, the 60th floor, and so forth.
The result would be that instead of the landlord receiving the rental value of the Empire State Building, the elevator owner could demand the lion's share. Without access, the building would be a walk-up and its rents would fall unless renters paid the elevator tollbooth.
This is what would happen with an oil pipeline owned by parties hostile to Russia. It is to avoid this that Gazprom insisted on building its own pipeline, under Russian control, to prevent rent-extracting investors. When Europe sought to block this by pretending that "free markets" meant separating pipeline ownership from the gas suppliers, it was trying to carve out a rent-extraction opportunity to siphon off Russian gas revenue.
The European Commission earlier had pressed an anti-Gazprom policy last year, in the process of imposing its austerity program on Greece. It insisted that Greece pay the IMF for having bailed out foreign bondholders by selling off assets in the public domain. The largest asset was Greece's oil rights in the Aegean and its commercial oil-related infrastructure. When Gazprom was the largest bidder, Europe blocked the sale. The result has been to impose even deeper austerity on Greece, polarizing that nation's politics in an increasingly anti-EU and anti-IMF stance and hence, anti-US Cold War politics.
5. What is occurring is a radical shift in U.S.-European diplomacy in a way that according to textbook theory is inherently unstable and unworkable.
Europe has inverted the major textbook premises of how national diplomacy is conducted. Instead of basing this diplomacy on economic and commercial interests, it is subordinating these interests to U.S. control. And as for Europe's membership in NATO, instead of viewing military policy as an arm of foreign diplomacy, it is subordinating economic diplomacy, trade patterns, gas and oil supplies, export markets for industry and agriculture all to serve NATO's military ends.
The objective no longer is military security as originally was the logic for NATO. Europe's economic realignment against Russia threatens to bring military conflict directly into the continent as a result of the proxy war in Ukraine.
It has been said that nations do not have friends or enemies, only national interests. Most of these are economic. But today in Europe, German Chancellor Merkel seems to be ignoring German and other European economic interests. Still obsessed with her hatred of the East German Communist regime, she sees in Russia only an enemy, not an economic market and supplier of raw materials and customer for German manufactures and technology. Likewise, her political love for the United States deems it Europe's natural friend, without taking into account how its New Cold War policy toward Europe "Let's you and Russia fight" undercuts European continental interests and exacerbates its austerity.
The United States for its part has adopted von Clausewitz's statement that war is an extension of foreign policy by other means in a very limited form: war seems to be the only lever that the United States is using in its foreign policy these days. And lacking an ability to mount a ground invasion, its only real threat is to tear economies apart by aerial bombing, as it has done to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libra and now Syria and is doing by backing a proxy war in Ukraine.
Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of The Bubble and Beyond (2012), Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e40442.htm

[David Guyatt]

But what U.S. heavy-handed military confrontation with Russia really has done is to drive a political wedge between the United States and Europe. Last week, Putin gave a speech saying he found little point in negotiating with European politicians, because they simply followed U.S. orders via NATO and by U.S. pressure on German politicians, French politicians and other European politicians.
In following U.S. New Cold War confrontation, Europe has been acting against its own economic interests.

Makes you think doesn't it. Why does Europe slavishly follow the US lead? Fear of overthrow is my guess, that and liberal quantities of brown enveloped to those who control European levers.

[Peter Lemkin]

As a counter balance to the foregoing hypocrisy:

William Blum's "Master List" of other countries governments overthrown by the US:

Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List

By William Blum Published February 2013
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

• China 1949 to early 1960s
  
• Albania 1949-53
  
• East Germany 1950s
  
• Iran 1953 *
  
• Guatemala 1954 *
  
• Costa Rica mid-1950s
  
• Syria 1956-7
  
• Egypt 1957
  
• Indonesia 1957-8
  
• British Guiana 1953-64 *
  
• Iraq 1963 *
  
• North Vietnam 1945-73
  
• Cambodia 1955-70 *
  
• Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  
• Ecuador 1960-63 *
  
• Congo 1960 *
  
• France 1965
  
• Brazil 1962-64 *
  
• Dominican Republic 1963 *
  
• Cuba 1959 to present
  
• Bolivia 1964 *
  
• Indonesia 1965 *
  
• Ghana 1966 *
  
• Chile 1964-73 *
  
• Greece 1967 *
  
• Costa Rica 1970-71
  
• Bolivia 1971 *
  
• Australia 1973-75 *
  
• Angola 1975, 1980s
  
• Zaire 1975
  
• Portugal 1974-76 *
  
• Jamaica 1976-80 *
  
• Seychelles 1979-81
  
• Chad 1981-82 *
  
• Grenada 1983 *
  
• South Yemen 1982-84
  
• Suriname 1982-84
  
• Fiji 1987 *
  
• Libya 1980s
  
• Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  
• Panama 1989 *
  
• Bulgaria 1990 *
  
• Albania 1991 *
  
• Iraq 1991
  
• Afghanistan 1980s *
  
• Somalia 1993
  
• Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  
• Ecuador 2000 *
  
• Afghanistan 2001 *
  
• Venezuela 2002 *
  
• Iraq 2003 *
  
• Haiti 2004 *
  
• Somalia 2007 to present
  
• Libya 2011*
  
• Syria 2012
  

Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.

US bombing of other countries :

William Blum

Official website of the author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic.

United States bombings of other countries

It is a scandal in contemporary international law, don't forget, that while "wanton destruction of towns, cities and villages" is a war crime of long standing, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the antistate terrorists who ever lived. Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant, but we are happy to elect a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not only restaurants but the buildings that contained them and the neighborhoods that surrounded them. I went to Iraq after the Gulf war and saw for myself what the bombs did; "wanton destruction" is just the term for it. C. Douglas Lummis, political scientist

The above was written in 1994, before the wanton destruction generated by the bombing of Yugoslavia, another in a long list of countries the United States has bombarded since the end of World War II, which is presented below.
There appears to be something about launching bombs or missiles from afar onto cities and people that appeals to American military and political leaders. In part it has to do with a conscious desire to not risk American lives in ground combat. And in part, perhaps not entirely conscious, it has to do with not wishing to look upon the gory remains of the victims, allowing American GIs and TV viewers at home to cling to their warm fuzzy feelings about themselves, their government, and their marvelous "family values". Washington officials are careful to distinguish between the explosives the US drops from the sky and "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), which only the officially-designated enemies (ODE) are depraved enough to use. The US government speaks sternly of WMD, defining them as nuclear, chemical and biological in nature, and "indiscriminate" (meaning their use can't be limited to military objectives), as opposed to the likes of American "precision" cruise missiles. This is indeed a shaky semantic leg to stand on, given the well-known extremely extensive damage to non-military targets, including numerous residences, schools and hospitals, even from American "smart" bombs, in almost all of the bombings listed below.
Moreover, Washington does not apply the term "weapons of mass destruction" to other weapons the US has regularly used, such as depleted uranium and cluster bombs, which can be, and often are, highly indiscriminate.
WMD are sometimes further defined as those whose effects linger in the environment, causing subsequent harm to people. This would certainly apply to cluster bombs, and depleted uranium weapons, the latter remaining dangerously radioactive after exploding. It would apply less to "conventional" bombs, but even with those there are unexploded bombs lying around, and the danger of damaged buildings later collapsing. But more importantly, it seems highly self-serving and specious, not to mention exceptionally difficult, to try to paint a human face on a Tomahawk Cruise missile whose payload of a thousand pounds of TNT crashes into the center of a densely-populated city, often with depleted uranium in its warhead.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force.

The bombing list

• Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
  
• Guatemala 1954
  
• Indonesia 1958
  
• Cuba 1959-1961
  
• Guatemala 1960
  
• Congo 1964
  
• Laos 1964-73
  
• Vietnam 1961-73
  
• Cambodia 1969-70
  
• Guatemala 1967-69
  
• Grenada 1983
  
• Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
  
• Libya 1986
  
• El Salvador 1980s
  
• Nicaragua 1980s
  
• Iran 1987
  
• Panama 1989
  
• Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
  
• Kuwait 1991
  
• Somalia 1993
  
• Bosnia 1994, 1995
  
• Sudan 1998
  
• Afghanistan 1998
  
• Yugoslavia 1999
  
• Yemen 2002
  
• Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
  
• Iraq 2003-present
  
• Afghanistan 2001-present
  
• Pakistan 2007-present
  
• Somalia 2007-8, 2011
  
• Yemen 2009, 2011
  
• Libya 2011
  

Plus

Iran, April 2003 hit by US missiles during bombing of Iraq, killing at least one person
Pakistan, 2002-03 bombed by US planes several times as part of combat against the Taliban and other opponents of the US occupation of Afghanistan
China, 1999 its heavily bombed embassy in Belgrade is legally Chinese territory, and it appears rather certain that the bombing was no accident (see chapter 25)
France, 1986 After the French government refused the use of its air space to US warplanes headed for a bombing raid on Libya, the planes were forced to take another, longer route; when they reached Libya they bombed so close to the French embassy that the building was damaged and all communication links knocked out.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 13, 1985 A bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict a black organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.
Them other guys are really shocking

"We should expect conflicts in which adversaries, because of cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities." Department of Defense, 1999
The Targets

It's become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are:

1. It poses a sufficient obstacle to the desires of the American Empire;
   
2. It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.
   

The survivors

A study by the American Medical Association: "Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing":

Nearly half the bombing survivors studied had an active postdisaster psychiatric disorder, and full criteria for PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] were met by one third of the survivors. PTSD symptoms were nearly universal, especially symptoms of intrusive reexperience and hyperarousal.

Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website:

We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans.

76

Notes

• The Nation, September 26, 1994, p.304
  
• RFE/RL Newsline, April 9, 2003 (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a "private" international communications service in Europe and Asia funded by the US government.)
  
• Washington Post, January 1, 2003; Australian Broadcasting Company, January 1, 2003; Agence France Presse, September 19, 2003
  
• Associated Press, "France Confirms It Denied U.S. Jets Air Space, Says Embassy Damaged", April 15, 1986
  
• U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, "New World Coming" (Phase I Report), September 15, 1999, p.3
  
• Journal of the American Medical Association, August 25, 1999, p.761
  

Thanks, Those always make me so proud to be an Amurikan.....(not really!...ashamed is more like it...) ::doh::
Bill Blum is a real hero and friend of mine....if only his books were required reading in high schools and colleges....in almost all of the former they are banned and in the later, simply unknown and almost never assigned nor mentioned.