?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
10 February 2015 @ 12:56 pm
Focus On Reality Versus Its Portrayal By NATO, Western Politicians & MSM  
Cold War 2.0: Countering NATO Propaganda against Russia
By Vladimir Kozin
Global Research, January 23, 2015
Oriental Review
In December 2014 NATO released a factsheet on NATO-Russia relations covering more than 30 issues.
The document was cooked according to the standard scheme elaborated by the US State Department – they take a Russian “false” assertion and dress it with a “correct” disclaimer.
Taking this weapon in hand, our expert is throwing the alliance’s propaganda claims back. Professor of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences Vladimir Kozin was directly engaged in NATO-related issues during his 40-years-long professional career in the Russian Foreign Ministry. He was one of the leading negotiators from the Russian side at the most of the Russia-US diplomatic and military talks on disarmament, strategic deterrence and other issues in 1990s.

Claim: NATO has a Cold War mentality
NATO’s  opinion:
The Cold War ended over 20 years ago. It was characterized by the opposition of two ideological blocs, the presence of massive standing armies in Europe, and the military, political and economic domination by the Soviet Union of almost all its European neighbours.The modern world does not feature competing ideological blocs: Russia has neither a credible ideology to export, nor significant international allies who support its aggressive actions in and around Ukraine. In fact, in a vote in the United Nations General Assembly on 23 March 2014, 100 countries voted that Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea was illegal, and just 10, other than Russia, supported it (resolution and voting record online here).
The end of the Cold War was a victory for the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and opened the way to overcoming the division of Europe.  At pathbreaking Summit meetings in the years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia played its part in building a new, inclusive European security architecture, including the Charter of Paris, the establishment of the OSCE, and the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Over the past decades, NATO reached out to Russia with a series of partnership initiatives, culminating in the foundation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. No other country has such a privileged relationship with NATO.
As stated by NATO heads of state and government at the Wales Summit in September, “the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. But we cannot and will not compromise on the principles on which our Alliance and security in Europe and North America rest.” (The Wales Summit Declaration can be read here).

This is NATO’s official policy, defined and expressed transparently by its highest level of leadership.

Prof. Vladimir Kozin:
It is true that the Cold War, or as it is now called, “Cold War 1.0,” formally ended on Nov. 21, 1990 with the signing of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. But unfortunately that conflict never truly ended, thanks to the efforts of the countries at NATO’s helm. An increasing number of Russian and foreign experts share this view, although Washington and the capitals of NATO’s leading countries claim otherwise.
Some Western experts have dubbed this new Cold War – “New Cold War” or “Cold War 2.0.”
Following is a list of what I consider to be the most important features of this continued Cold War, or of the new Cold War that began after 1989: the US’ withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and their deployment of a global system for intercepting ballistic and cruise missiles; the failure of all the NATO signatories to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe to ratify it; and the heavy reliance on nuclear forces that is still evident in the basic doctrines of the US and NATO, given Washington’s unaltered doctrine of “offensive nuclear deterrence” and “extended nuclear deterrence,” which envisions a first nuclear strike against some states, including the Russian Federation, as well as the “nuclear sharing arrangements” that exist between the United States and many other members of that transatlantic alliance. To this list should be added the decades-long refusal of NATO’s leading nations to back a proposal to prevent the weaponization of space, as well as the US refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
There are five key features of the “Cold War 2.0” being waged by the current US administration that were present during “Cold War 1.0,” but to a lesser extent:
1) the arms-control process has ground to a halt (previously seven agreements had been signed just focusing on limiting and reducing nuclear-weapons stockpiles);
2) NATO’s leading nations have stepped up their military activity on the Russian border in times, a fact that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has admitted in his recent public statements;
3) NATO has intensified its hostile, bellicose rhetoric against Russia and has even made threats against her;
4) financial and economic sanctions against Russia were proposed and levied without sufficient cause, and they are of a greater magnitude than anything observed in the last century; and
5) direct attempts have been made to overthrow the existing leaders of the nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States, sometimes through covert CIA operations.
And as for the “the presence of massive standing armies in Europe,” the NATO member states have stationed masses of troops there, both in the 20th century and still today, far outnumbering the conventional armed forces in Russia or the CSTO. Shortly before he retired, US Admiral James Stavridis claimed that NATO collectively possesses 24,000 combat aircraft and 800 ocean-going ships. This cannot be compared to either Russia’s military capabilities or to the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

Russia is not engaged in “aggressive actions” in Ukraine.
If you are referring to Crimea – that was a peaceful reunification of the peninsula with Russia, in keeping with any nation’s right to self-determination, and it was conducted on the basis of a peaceful and democratic referendum.
Crimea is an ancient Russian land. Prince Vladimir was baptized there in 988, and he went on to baptize the people of Rus in Kiev.
Crimea was conquered by Russia over the course of 30 sea and land wars against the Ottoman Empire.
Crimea became an official part of the Russian Empire in 1783.
Crimea was not ceded to Ukraine in 1954. To view the issue from an international legal perspective: the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR did not have the authority to decide this question. In addition, they had no quorum. Sevastopol, a city under federal jurisdiction, was never ceded to Ukraine.
And at the meeting in Belavezha Forest in 1991, Ukraine’s president Leonid Kravchuk promised Russia’s Boris Yeltsin that Crimea would be returned.
In 1992 the Russian parliament declared Khrushchev’s 1954 act to be invalid.
Residents of Crimea celebrating reunification with Russia, March 2014
If you are referring to Russian “aggression” in Crimea in 2014 – there was nothing of the sort. Crimea’s peaceful reunification with her ancestral homeland does not meet the definition of the term “aggression,” as interpreted by the UN General Assembly Resolution of Dec. 14, 1974. “Aggression” cannot occur when not a single shot is fired and there are no dead or wounded – and this is precisely how that reunification was carried out, during which Crimea once again sailed into her “home harbor.” An “aggressor” does not usually return captured weapons and military equipment to the alleged “victim” of his “aggression”. Of the two million inhabitants of the Republic of Crimea, only a few thousand abandoned the land “seized by the aggressor.” The others, as we know, happily welcomed the long-awaited reunification with their homeland. During the referendum, more than 97% of voters cast their ballots in favor of rejoining Russia.
If you are referring to the Donbass, none of the representatives of the OSCE, nor any other human-rights organizations have found any “Russian aggressors” there. About one million Ukrainian citizens have already decamped for Russia in order to escape the rampant genocide unleashed by the current leaders of Ukraine. Never before in the history of the world have any people seeking refuge from an “aggressor” escaped by fleeing to that aggressor’s country.The West still does not understand or want to understand one indisputable fact: the people of the Donbass do not want to live as part of Ukraine – Kiev has shed too much blood and destroyed too many civilian lives.






That cannot be forgotten. Ever.
Yes, under the influence of misleading Western propaganda, in addition to wanting to support the ultranationalist regime in Ukraine that came to power as a result of an illegal, unconstitutional, and bloody coup, many states rushed to support Resolution 68/262 at the UN General Assembly in 2014. But many countries (almost half) either abstained or voted against the resolution.
I think more would have voted against such a resolution or abstained, if the leaders of those countries had been able to foresee what this “support” has cost thus far: about 5,000 civilians in the Donbass have been killed and over 10,000 wounded, plus 65% of the homes in the region have been destroyed by Ukrainian regular troops using heavy weapons, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and Tochka-U ballistic missile systems with 500 kg. warheads.
[Video - 23.12.2014 Stepanovka. Ruins of Stepanovka UAV view. Shown below.]

The countries you have mentioned that supported the hastily concocted resolution on Ukraine must now and in the future bear the guilt of the blood of the innocent dead and wounded of the Donbass, as well as for the massive destruction of that region’s infrastructure. One hundred countries voted in favor of it, essentially giving a “green light” to the ultranationalists who are directing the military operations against the civilian population in the country’s Southeast – meaning that they have abetted Kiev’s war crimes.
[Video - Ordinary fascism in Ukraine. XXI century. Shown below.]

The Ukrainian armed forces’ brutal combat operations in the Donbass against the civilian population meets the definition of “aggression” and “war of aggression” as given in the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1974, and found in articles 1-3 and 5, respectively, of that decree. The mass murders, including serial killings and executions of civilians by the Ukrainian armed forces without benefit of a court or trial, are a flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental of human rights – the right to life.
[Video - Donetsk: An American Glance Shown below.]

Recently adopted documents in regard to Ukraine: the US House of Representatives anti-Russian H.Res. 758 and H.R. 5859 – the Ukraine Freedom Support Act – signed by Barack Obama will help escalate Ukraine’s internal conflict, transforming it into a permanent state of affairs. These legal acts are in conflict with the agreements on Ukraine reached in 2014 in Minsk, Geneva, Berlin, and Kiev.
Since the creation of the North Atlantic alliance, neither the USSR nor Russia has ever had a “privileged relationship with NATO.” The creation of the NATO-Russia Council and the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act does not signify that they automatically have such a relationship, when the alliance’s eloquent statements and pronouncements continue to be at odds with NATO’s real actions in the world and with the way the alliance has behaved toward Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Finland is one example of a state that is not a formal member of the transatlantic alliance, but which has a “privileged partnership” with NATO, and that country long ago adopted the military and organizational standards of this, the largest Western bloc.
Unfortunately, 25 years after the adoption of the Paris Charter, the United States and the 27 other NATO members have not yet managed to “promote unity in Europe.” Looking back, we can confidently say that the North Atlantic alliance made no real effort to accomplish this during those years.
From a military/political point of view, the unjustifiable increase in Europe of the military capabilities of NATO and of the US (based on no genuine need) is not conducive to the strengthening of security in this densely populated region. On the contrary, these actions lead to suspicion, weakened trust between the states located here, and a return to an entirely new Cold War, which the current US military/political leadership has launched with the full consent of many European states. These military preparations violate many international agreements that were signed shortly after the official end of Cold War 1.0 in November 1990.
To be continued…
From Global Research- globalresearch.ca/cold-war-2-0-countering-nato-propaganda-against-russia/5426401

Follow-up topics:
NATO is a U.S. geopolitical project
NATO’s purpose is to contain or weaken Russia
NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia
NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War
NATO is a threat to Russia
NATO missile defence is targeted at Russia
The accession of new Allies to NATO threatens Russia

[Some emphasis was added to this post.]
Tags:
 
 
 
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 12:59 pm (UTC)
23.12.2014 Stepanovka. Ruins of Stepanovka UAV view.
PL Win Published on Jan 1, 2015
23.12.2014 Stepanovka, Donetsk region. Ruins of Stepanovka, UAV (Unmanned aerial vehicle) view. July-August 2014 - heavy fighting for control of the Russian-Ukrainian border



Edited at 2015-02-11 12:10 am (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 01:10 pm (UTC)
Ordinary fascism in Ukraine. XXI century
Andre Fomine Published on May 6, 2014
Documentary video about days and nights of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Torch marches, ceremonies, "actions" and crimes committed by this destructive movement fostered by thousands of NGOs for the last 23 years. Clear and present fruit of $5,000,000,000 of direct US investments into "democracy" in Ukraine.



Edited at 2015-02-11 12:11 am (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 01:12 pm (UTC)
Donetsk: An American Glance
RT Documentary Published on Nov 12, 2014
RTD and Miguel Francis Santiago, the author of “Crimea for Dummies”, go to Donetsk where the bloody conflict between the Ukrainian army and the anti-government forces is in full swing. With contradictory information coming from the region, witnessing the situation first-hand is the only way to find out what’s really happening there.



Edited at 2015-02-11 12:12 am (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 08:42 pm (UTC)
Countering NATO Propaganda on Russia: NATO Intervention in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya, Ukraine
By Vladimir Kozin
Global Research, February 08
Oriental Review

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V
A follow-up of Professor Vladimir Kozin’s comments on NATO’s Fact Sheet about relations with Russia published in December 2014. The topics to be covered in this part:
  • NATO’s operation in Afghanistan was a failure;
  • The NATO-led mission in Afghanistan failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade;
  • NATO’s operation over Libya was illegitimate;
  • NATO’s operation over Kosovo was illegitimate;
  • The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical;
  • Russia’s annexation of Crimea was justified;
  • The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate.
NATO’s operation in Afghanistan was a failure
NATO claim:
NATO took over the command of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2003.
Under NATO's command, the mission progressively extended throughout Afghanistan, was joined by 22 non-NATO countries and built up from scratch an Afghan National Security Force of more than 350,000 soldiers and police.
Threats to Afghanistan's security continue. However, the Afghan forces are now ready to take full responsibility for security across the country, as agreed with the Afghan authorities.
NATO has agreed to continue providing training, advice and assistance to the Afghan forces, and has planned a mission to do so, "Resolute Support", as of 1 January.
Prof. Vladimir Kozin:
Yes, the NATO mission in Afghanistan was a complete military failure. The armed opposition in that country was not destroyed, despite high numbers of casualties among civilians, as well as soldiers and officers from the Western coalition. If the Afghan armed forces were capable of truly maintaining control over security in the country, Washington would not have signed an agreement with Kabul about maintaining its military presence there until 2024. If not later.
The NATO-led mission in Afghanistan failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade
NATO claim:
As with any sovereign country, the primary responsibility for upholding law and order in Afghanistan, including as regards the trade in narcotics, rests with the Afghan government.
The international community is supporting the Afghan government to live up to this responsibility in many ways, including both through the United Nations and through the European Union.
NATO is not a main actor in this area. This role has been agreed with the international community.
Prof. Vladimir Kozin:
NATO has not stopped and is not prepared to stop the Afghan drug threat, offering up the ridiculous excuse that it has no specific mandate to do so. But if they wanted, such a mandate could be written up and signed within a couple of days. Apparently, NATO's "non-interference" in drug production in Afghanistan is something of interest to the alliance: not only Russian citizens die from ingesting cocktails of Afghan drugs, but also Europeans.
NATO’s operation over Libya was illegitimate
NATO claim: The NATO-led operation was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), 1970 and 1973, both quoting Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and neither of which was opposed by Russia.
UNSCR 1973 authorized the international community “to take all necessary measures” ...

Continues at Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/countering-nato-propaganda-on-russia-nato-intervention-in-afghanistan-kosovo-libya-ukraine/5430008

Edited at 2015-02-10 08:43 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous) on February 10th, 2015 09:33 pm (UTC)
IS: how should world respond?
"The brutality of Islamic State is nothing more than a mirror to our own deep-seated violence in the region, writes Richard Jackson..............How should the world respond to the increasing brutality of the war in Iraq, and what does this latest development tell us about Western strategy in the region?

Sadly, this atrocity, and those previously committed by IS, are actually fairly banal in the history of warfare.

Depraved cruelty and inhumanity are part and parcel of the very nature of war.

We need only recall what American GIs did to captured prisoners in Vietnam, what British troops did to communist insurgents in Malaya or to suspected Mau Mau in Kenya, or what the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the RUF in Sierra Leone and the Interahamwe in Rwanda did to countless civilians in their conflicts.

Or, consider the activities of the Latin American death squads during the Cold War, the actions of Russian forces in Chechnya, or how state security officials in Uzbekistan boiled people to death in vats of oil.

In South Africa, during the anti-apartheid struggle, it was commonplace for angry township residents to put a tyre filled with petrol around the neck of a suspected informer and burn them to death.

The truth is that history records innumerable atrocities by rebels and soldiers alike that make the actions of IS pale into relative insignificance.

In some respects, IS fighters are still amateurs in the arts of violent cruelty during war..........................."

Richard Jackson is deputy director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago.

http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/332672/how-should-world-respond
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 10:09 pm (UTC)
Re: IS: how should world respond?
Many fighters of ISIS were (and are?) trained by allied forces. Allied intelligence services and forces advised and befriended by enemies of humanity like McCain. Saudi funded to oust the Assad gov. Israeli regime aided, medically and financially by buying stolen oil from them. This much has been reported. As far as the zionist controlled West is concerned, that is how the R.O.W. is responding.
How should it respond? With honesty and decency and by ostracizing those that are aiding the terrorists both in the M.E., N.A. and in the Ukraine where the junta is attacking civilians. The increasingly desperate propaganda and bare faced lies spouted by politicians and echoed in the MSM show that Russia is gaining the upper hand in refusing to be provoked into action and financially, the US is not just financially bankrupt but morally so too. Tax funded NATO can't afford to take over the Mistral order it has denied Russia leaving France in a pickle, German business is rebelling against sanctions and the non servile nations are just ignoring them. The UK regime has greatly reduced its military capacity and confidence has fallen drastically in its deceptive leadership, the latest scandal being that the zionist bankster PM employed an HSBC bankster that was is in charge of helping clients evade billions in tax.
Makes you laugh when you see the cons and libs trying to deny the disabled and unemployed whilst rewarding financial crooks and backing fascists and terrorists in other countries.
---
I sort of wandered away from the main point but what the hell.
:)
Thanks for the comment. there was an article about Obama saying historically chrispies are as bad as mozzies, (tactfully not mentioning the zionist jew assault on Palestinian arab mozzies).

Edited at 2015-02-10 10:10 pm (UTC)
Re: IS: how should world respond? - (Anonymous) on February 11th, 2015 12:01 am (UTC) (Expand)
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 09:38 pm (UTC)
Who are the “Friends of Ukraine”?
Feb 2, 2015
By Andrey POLEVOY (Russia)
On Jan. 11, 2015, the Ukrainian website “GordonUA” published a rousing article (in Russian) with the suggestive title of “The Best Friends. The Countries Offering Assistance to Ukraine in 2014.” Let’s read that document carefully.
“The past year has turned out to be an extremely difficult one for Ukraine. After President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014, Ukraine teetered on the brink of default, and the fighting that began in the eastern provinces in the spring only made the situation worse.”
Apparently, ex-President Yanukovych was an essential mascot for Ukraine, and when he disappeared that instantly devastated the entire country’s financial well-being. And from his exile Yanukovych continued to undermine Ukraine’s financial stability, even at a distance. In February 2014, Ukraine’s gold and currency reserves were worth $20.41 billion, but by Dec. 1 their value had dwindled to $9.97 billion. Now they have been reduced to approximately $7 billion.
European Union
The European Union was the first to step forward and offer financial assistance to Ukraine.
It was the EU that set up a donors’ forum to provide assistance to Ukraine, in coordination with the United States, Japan, China, Canada, and Turkey. Former European Commission President José Manuel Barroso declared that the entire world should take part in condemning Russia’s actions and offering assistance to Ukraine, noting that the EU was ready to provide a loan of €1 billion. EU member states furnished help to Ukraine in the form of financial and humanitarian assistance. In addition, over the course of the year the EU imposed a number of sanctions against Russia, and also against the Crimea she had annexed. In December Ukraine was presented with a second installment of that loan, amounting to €500 million.”

And it’s true that on May 20 Ukraine received 100 million euros from the European Commission, another 500 million on June 17, and 260 million on Nov. 12. The total value of the support came to 860 million euros.
It is no secret that the “entire world” did not join in the condemnation of Russia, which was confined to the US and its satellites. The tangible material assistance Ukraine received was even more modest. Although China and Turkey were included on the list of coordinators, they did not give Kiev any money. In March 2014, Turkey merely declared its readiness “to assist in the stabilization of Crimea,” and China agreed to send humanitarian aid under the auspices of the UN, in the event that such a program was initiated.
Instead of condemning Russia, these states have significantly expanded their bilateral relationships: China signed a strategic contract with Russia that promises to deliver hydrocarbons for the next 30 years, and a “southern” route for Russian gas supplies headed for Europe was redirected to Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan has proposed the creation of a regional alliance of Turkey, Iran, and Russia, and ships flying the Turkish flag freely enter Crimean ports, disregarding all menacing sanctions.
EU sanctions against Russia have led to protests by business owners as well as economic problems within the EU itself. It is no secret that the German business community is putting increasing pressure on that country’s political leaders, demanding that the sanctions – which are affecting European businesses rather than American ones although they were imposed at the order of the US – be revoked.
Continues http://orientalreview.org/2015/02/02/who-are-the-friends-of-ukraine/
clothcapclothcap on February 10th, 2015 11:10 pm (UTC)
Ukrainian Government: “No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us”
Sanctions against Russia based on Falsehoods
By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, January 31
[...] The Chief of Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries’ citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government’s side), who “are members of illegal armed groups,” meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just “individual citizens” (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the “Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army.”
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU’s sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.’s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against “the regular units of the Russian army” — i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against “regular units of the Russian army” is the allegation that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud — and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine’s top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false, then he has no place heading Ukraine’s military.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-government-no-russian-troops-are-fighting-against-us-sanctions-against-russia-based-on-falshoods/5428523

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 01:29 am (UTC)
NATO is Already at War in Ukraine... and it is Losing
By Finian Cunningham on February 5
The plain truth is that US-led NATO is up to its eyes in fuelling the Ukraine war, and it is losing the war it launched in the first place.
In yet another sleight of hand, Western news media are this week spinning the notion that the US and NATO are «considering sending lethal military aid» in order «to defend» the Kiev regime from «Russian aggression».
That's a pathetic joke. The real explanation is that NATO is losing its war in Ukraine and needs to send more military fuel in order to salvage the mounting losses.
First, the Western media slyly acknowledge that US-led NATO has so far «only dispatched non-lethal military equipment». That rhetorical ruse is used to pretend that non-lethal material is somehow not really military grade. But whether non-lethal or lethal, military equipment is military equipment. So, let's just dispense with that bunch of semantics. The US and its public-relations alter-ego, NATO, are already deeply involved militarily in Ukraine, supporting the Kiev regime whose 10-month offensive on eastern Ukraine has resulted in over 5,300 deaths.
Secondly, the notion that Washington is «reconsidering» whether to send «lethal aid», as reported in the New York Times on Monday, is another risible illusion. The US and its NATO allies are already sending lethal military equipment to the Ukraine. US President Obama said this week that «pouring more weapons into Ukraine» will not resolve the conflict. While German Chancellor Angela Merkel also vowed that Germany would not be supplying weapons to the Kiev regime, adding that the conflict cannot be solved by military means. Both Obama and Merkel are either woefully deceptive or living in cloud-cuckoo land. Probably both.
Let's cut to the chase. NATO is at war in Ukraine and has been so for the past year, if not covertly for the past two decades.
Wayne Madsen in his SCF column this week provides detailed evidence that a giant military transport plane, a Ukrainian Antonov AN124, has been tracked while flying weapons from the US and several NATO countries into Kiev for at least the past four months. The transporter plane – the world's biggest such aircraft – has been spotted carrying out cargo runs in the US, Norway, Italy and Romania on a secret mission to funnel heavy weapons to the Kiev regime.
Prior to that, the Russian government has claimed that US mercenaries, possibly belonging to Pentagon security contract firm, Blackwater/Academi, have been recorded operating inside Ukraine alongside Kiev's military units, including the Nazi SS-styled National Guard.
This week, a senior spokesman for the self-declared Lugansk People's Republic, Alexei Karyakin, said that NATO munitions have been recovered from various battle zones. «Fragments recovered from munitions bear NATO marks... Now NATO is killing our countrymen», said Karyakin.
Earlier this month, when pro-Russian self-defence militia retook the Donetsk International Airport from Kiev forces, who had been using the facility to shell Donetsk City for the past several months, it was reported that among the charred remains were NATO manuals in several European languages and other items identified as NATO-standard equipment.
At the end of last year, the US Congress passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which mandates the supply of $350 million in lethal and non-lethal aid to the Kiev regime. The Obama administration maintains the fiction that it has not yet acted on the «non-lethal» provisions in the Act, but that is stretching credulity to breaking point.
The notion that Washington and its NATO allies, including Britain, the Baltic states and Poland, are now – only now – mulling the possibility of furnishing lethal material to the Kiev regime is simply laughable.

Continues http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/02/05/515074nato-is-already-at-war-in-ukraine-and-it-is-losing/
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 01:53 am (UTC)
Obama Admits U.S. Overthrew Democratically Elected Ukrainian Government
Coups are now democratic "transitions"
by Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com February 2,
Obama told Fareed Zakaria, a member of both the CFR and Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, that the United States “brokered” the coup in Ukraine last February.
Obama’s candid admission should not come as a surprise following the release of a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Victoria Nuland, the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey R. Pyatt, the US Ambassador to Ukraine.
The conversation centered on ousting Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and replacing him with one of several hand-picked State Department choices.
Nuland instructed Pyatt to “have the UN glue this thing” and then dismissively added “fuck the EU” for its role negotiating the crisis.
The U.S. orchestrated “transition,” as Obama characterized it, resulted in the appointment of fascists to key positions in the Kiev government and led to the current war in eastern Ukraine launched by Petro Poroshenko, the former confectionary magnate turned Ukrainian president.
Poroshenko’s war on those who do not accept the nationalist government in Kiev has thus far killed more than 5,000 people, although unofficial tallies are far higher.
In the not too distant past, the U.S. government attempted to hide its involvement in coups and the removal of democratically elected leaders. It relied primarily on the CIA to foment coups and counter-revolutions.
However, since the advent of NGO and foundation spawned “color revolutions” attributed to the people of target countries, while in actuality orchestrated by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. government has admitted its role in overturning governments.
Vid and links at source: http://www.infowars.com/obama-admits-u-s-overthrew-democratically-elected-ukrainian-government/
by Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com February 2,
Obama told Fareed Zakaria, a member of both the CFR and Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, that the United States “brokered” the coup in Ukraine last February.
Obama’s candid admission should not come as a surprise following the release of a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Victoria Nuland, the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey R. Pyatt, the US Ambassador to Ukraine.
The conversation centered on ousting Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and replacing him with one of several hand-picked State Department choices.
Nuland instructed Pyatt to “have the UN glue this thing” and then dismissively added “fuck the EU” for its role negotiating the crisis.
The U.S. orchestrated “transition,” as Obama characterized it, resulted in the appointment of fascists to key positions in the Kiev government and led to the current war in eastern Ukraine launched by Petro Poroshenko, the former confectionary magnate turned Ukrainian president.
Poroshenko’s war on those who do not accept the nationalist government in Kiev has thus far killed more than 5,000 people, although unofficial tallies are far higher.
In the not too distant past, the U.S. government attempted to hide its involvement in coups and the removal of democratically elected leaders. It relied primarily on the CIA to foment coups and counter-revolutions.
However, since the advent of NGO and foundation spawned “color revolutions” attributed to the people of target countries, while in actuality orchestrated by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. government has admitted its role in overturning governments.
Vid and links at source: http://www.infowars.com/obama-admits-u-s-overthrew-democratically-elected-ukrainian-government/
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 08:39 pm (UTC)
Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 9/11 Evidence?
Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 9/11 Evidence?
Sensational claim causes buzz on conspiracy websites
by Paul Joseph Watson February 11

http://www.infowars.com/putin-threatens-to-reveal-bombshell-911-evidence/

Edited at 2015-02-11 10:02 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous) on February 12th, 2015 01:57 am (UTC)
Re: Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 9/11 Evidence?
LOL LOL LOL LMAO. Such nonsense from the whackos at Infowars will as per usual amount to absolutely nothing. From the clumsy bear's own mouth, Putin's state funded propaganda broadcaster Russia Today.

9/11 inside job “impossible to conceal,” says Vladimir Putin.

"Claims that the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies are "complete nonsense," Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told attendees of a youth forum.

­"This is complete nonsense, it is impossible," Putin said on Monday, responding to a question posed by an attendee of the Seliger 2011 youth forum.


"To imagine that US intelligence services did it deliberately, with their own hands, is complete nonsense," the prime minister said. “Only people who do not understand the workings of security agencies can say that. It would be impossible to conceal it.”


Putin added that he could not imagine how "any of the current or former US leaders could have such an idea."


As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, skepticism over the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks appears to be on the rise. 9/11 “truth movements,” made up of diverse individuals from around the world, are demanding an independent investigation into those horrific events that changed the course of history".

http://rt.com/politics/9-11-putin-seliger-investigation-toronto-355/
Re: Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 9/11 Evidence? - clothcap on February 12th, 2015 01:53 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 9/11 Evidence? - (Anonymous) on February 12th, 2015 09:31 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 9/11 Evidence? - clothcap on February 13th, 2015 04:37 pm (UTC) (Expand)
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 09:04 pm (UTC)
ISIS Faked Jordanian Pilot Burning; Voice of Israel Guest
"He's clearly being directed every step of the way".
by Paul Joseph Watson February 10
A guest who appeared on Voice of Israel, Israel’s biggest English language broadcast network, sensationally claimed that ISIS faked the burning of Jordanian pilot Youssef al-Kasasbeh and that the highly produced video was acted out.
Host Mottle Wolfe and Voice of Israel video director Ryan Lifchitz agreed that the video was probably staged.

http://www.infowars.com/isis-faked-jordanian-pilot-burning-voice-of-israel-guest/
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 09:30 pm (UTC)
Swelling discontent with unwanted GMO sneaked into our food
GMO Labeling Sweeping Nation: Arizona May Soon Enforce Labels
10 February
Americans demand transparency as biotech giants fight labeling nationwide.
State representatives in Arizona have proposed a measure that would require food manufacturers to label some genetically modified foods. Similar to Minnesota, Rhode Island, Indiana, and other states, at least Arizona lawmakers are listening to the people’s choice to have their food labeled as genetically modified when it contains biotech-altered ingredients.
Heading the effort is representative, Juan Mendez, a Democrat from Tempe, Arizona. He argues:
“My concern is that you are consuming genetically modified organisms and are unaware of it, and it’s almost a shame that you don’t have more information about what you’re putting in your body. This is taking the genes of either other food, animals, bacteria and injecting them into the food you eat.”
The initiative comes in the form of House Bill 2462. Mendez realizes that there will be hot contention from the presentation of the bill – especially from large food corporations. He understands thatthere are strong opinions on both sides of the GMO fence.
More http://www.infowars.com/gmo-labeling-sweeping-nation-arizona-may-soon-enforce-labels/

If you prefer not to eat or drink products that have GMO in them, check this out for a list of companies that use them and those that fund Monsanto's anti labelling ads and legal opposition to them.
6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying
http://naturalsociety.com/take-foods-shopping-list-6-multinational-companies-fighting-keep-eating-gmos/
Give Monsanto (globalist corp'n) a big helping hand with their down-slide and let the companies that are against their customers knowing what they put in their products learn that the customer is king/kingess.

Monsanto reports $156m loss as farmers abandon GM crops
http://www.hangthebankers.com/monsanto-reports-156m-loss-as-farmers-abandon-gm-crops/

37 million bees die due to pesticides used on GMO crop
http://www.hangthebankers.com/37-million-bees-die-due-to-pesticides-used-on-gmo-crop/
“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said.

Oprah Winfrey running Monsanto ads in her magazine
http://www.hangthebankers.com/oprah-winfrey-running-monsanto-ads-in-her-magazine/

Edited at 2015-02-11 10:57 pm (UTC)
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 10:58 pm (UTC)
Re: Swelling discontent with unwanted GMO sneaked into our food
Breyers Drops Milk Tainted with Monsanto’s RBST
Yet another victory in the battle for proper health
by Infowars.com February 10

In the face of a health-conscious collective, ice cream giant Breyers has decided to stop using milk from cows treated with the controversial, artificial growth hormone rBST. This news makes it even more apparent that a food awakening is happening as consumers demand additive-free foo
http://www.infowars.com/breyers-drops-milk-tainted-with-monsantos-rbst/
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 09:56 pm (UTC)
Another JP Morgan banker ‘murder-suicided’
A JPMorgan Chase associate and his wife were found dead in an apparent murder-suicide in Closter, New Jersey on Friday evening.
According to the Bergen County prosecutor John Molinelli, Michael Tabacchi, 27, allegedly killed his wife, Iran Pars Tabacchi, 41, who also went by “Denise.”
“Autopsy on Closter couple shows wife died from strangulation and single stab wound to chest. Husband died from self inflicted stab chest,” Molinelli Tweeted.
http://www.hangthebankers.com/another-jp-morgan-banker-murder-suicided/
Does that make it 49?
48 suspicious banking deaths
http://www.hangthebankers.com/48-suspicious-banking-deaths/
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 09:58 pm (UTC)
Nikolai Azarov, Prime Minister of Ukraine 2010-14
(English subtitles).


After a year of silence Nikolai Azarov has given this 34-minute interview.
Ukraine in 2013 was on the path of stable economic growth with the potential to rival Germany. Its GDP, profits, wages and social welfare were all rising. One year later the trend is the opposite.
The mechanics of the 2014 coup d´état, the uninvestigated crimes, the lies and censorship, the economic and social consequences are among many topics highlighted by former Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov, who fled for his life after an assassination attempt during the Washington-sponsored coup.
Azarov has noticed that whenever the Ukrainian economy achieves a positive growth rate, some political turbulence disrupts it. The best years for the Ukrainian economy were:
2004 – leading to the Orange Revolution;
2007 – leading to the dissolution of parliament;
2013 – leading to Nuland’s $5 billion coup d´état.
Source : http://www.youtube.com/user/NewInsightSubs/videos?view=0&sort=dd
clothcapclothcap on February 11th, 2015 10:00 pm (UTC)
Can Strong Women Stop the Civil War in Ukraine?
By Russia Insider
Ukraine military commanders are going to different regions around the country to draft men and women so Kiev can send them to fight their fellow countrymen in the East. A woman from Zaporozhia Region brilliantly takes down the reasons given for the war and the draft. The sentiment of the crowd is clear, they don't want war and they resent the lies being told to them.

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/02/ukrainian-women-destroy-kievs-war.html

Edited at 2015-02-11 10:01 pm (UTC)