President Vladimir Putin On Alleged Russian Election Interference

Source

(Full Exclusive) | Megyn Kelly | NBC News

Megyn Kelly sits down for an exclusive interview with President Vladimir Putin, asking him about allegations that the Russians interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Posted June 05, 2017

 

See also

The Real Danger in Demonizing Putin’s Russia

Putin to Oliver Stone: I suggested Russia joining NATO to Clinton: While Clinton replied that he “didn’t mind,” the rest of the American delegation became visibly nervous, Putin went on to say, smiling.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Vladimir Putin’s interview with Le Figaro

From The Saker

Youtube deleted the the full Interview, I brought parts of it from RT

 

May 31, 2017

Vladimir Putin’s interview with Le Figaro

President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to French Le Figaro newspaper, at the Russian Cultural Centre in Paris. The interview was recorded on May 29 in Paris during the President’s visit to France.

Interview with French newspaper Le Figaro

Question (retranslated): A very good afternoon. Thank you very much for agreeing to answer questions from Le Figaro. I would also like to thank you for meeting with us here, in a classroom at the Russian Cultural Centre. Once again, thank you for granting this interview.

You came to France in order to open an exhibition that marks 300 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties between Russia and France. There have been highs and lows in the relations between the two countries. What is your perspective on the current state of these relations?

Vladimir Putin: It is true that President Macron invited me to take part in the opening of the exhibition. However, let me tell you straight away that the relations between Russia and France have a much longer history and much deeper roots, as the French President and I both mentioned on several occasions today. In fact, the younger daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, one of Russia’s Grand Princesses, Anna came here in the 11th century to marry King Henry I of France.

She was actually called Anna of Rus, Queen of France. Her son Philip I of France was the founder of two European royal houses, the Valois and the Bourbons, and the latter rules in Spain to this day.

This goes to say that the roots of our relations go much deeper, although over the last 300 years they did pick up momentum. This is true. I very much hope that today’s event, the exhibition and my talks with President Macron will give a new impetus to these relations.

Question: Mr President, what is your vision of Peter the Great, who came to Versailles in 1717 to establish diplomatic relations?

Vladimir Putin: As I have said to my French colleague and our French friends today, Peter the Great was above all a reformer, a man who not only implemented the best and the most up-to-date practices, but also was undoubtedly a patriot, who fought to secure for Russia the place it deserved in international affairs.

But above all, he was committed to reforming his country, making it modern, resilient and forward-looking. He succeeded in many, if not all of his undertakings. He focused on research, education, culture, military affairs and statehood, leaving an immense legacy that Russia has been relying on to this day, let alone the fact that he founded my hometown, St Petersburg, which was the capital of Russia for many years.

Question: You said that you recently met with Mr Macron. Did you have any expectations from the first meeting? You said that it is important to overcome the stage of mistrust. Is it over now?

As for the main issue, the sanctions, can you say you reached any kind of understanding?

Vladimir Putin: At any meeting, in any contacts, at any events of this level, especially if it is the first contact, there are always expectations. If there are no expectations, it is pointless to hold meetings of this kind. I certainly had expectations this time.

I wanted to get a closer look, to learn first-hand the position of the incoming President of the French Republic on the key issues on the international agenda and on the development of bilateral relations.

As the newly elected President takes office, he certainly has his own view of things, of bilateral relations, of international politics. Overall, I would say it is a very pragmatic view. We certainly have points for rapprochement, for joint work in key areas.

Question: The implementation of the Minsk Agreements on Ukraine seems to have reached a deadlock. Have you managed to achieve any progress with President Macron towards the resolution of this conflict?

Vladimir Putin: Progress in resolving any conflict, including the conflict in southeast Ukraine, can be achieved first and foremost by the conflicting parties. This conflict is internal – a Ukrainian conflict primarily. It occurred after an unconstitutional forceful seizure of power in Kiev in 2014.

This is the source of all problems. The most important thing to do is to find the strength to negotiate with all the conflicting parties, and above all, I am confident that as they say, the ball is in the court of the official Kiev authorities. First of all, they must take care of implementing the Minsk agreements.

Question: What could help achieve progress in this area? Can Russia put forth an initiative that will bring about peace?

Vladimir Putin: This is what we keep talking about. We believe that the main condition is to withdraw the armed forces from the contact line. This is the first thing that must be done. The withdrawal has been completed in two areas, but this goal has not been reached in the third area.

The Ukrainian authorities say this cannot be done because of the shooting there. But shooting will not stop unless troops and heavy weaponry pull back. Heavy weaponry must be withdrawn. This is a key priority.

The second goal in the political sphere is to put into practice, at long last, the law on the special status of these regions, which the Ukrainian parliament has adopted. The law has been adopted but has not come into effect.

The law on amnesty has been passed, but President Poroshenko has not signed it. The Minsk Agreements stipulate the social and economic rehabilitation in the self-proclaimed republics. Instead of doing this, Kiev has blockaded these territories. The blockade was initiated by the radicals who blocked the railway lines.

At first, the Ukrainian President denounced their actions and said that he would restore order. However, he failed. Instead of continuing his efforts, he officially joined the blockade and issued an executive order to this effect. Can we speak of changes for the better in this situation? Regrettably, we have not seen any so far.

Question: Let us forget about Eastern Europe for a minute and talk about the Middle East, primarily Syria. After Russia’s military intervention in September 2015, what do you think are the main solutions for Syria to get out of this long-term war?

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to note the constructive approach of Turkey and Iran, and, of course, the Syrian government, which, together with Russia, have managed to achieve a ceasefire. The ceasefire would not have been possible without the so-called Syrian armed opposition. It was the first and very important step towards peace.

Another step, which is no less important, is the agreement on establishing the so-called de-escalation zones. Currently there are four such zones. We believe this is an extremely important milestone on the way to peace, if I can phrase it this way, because it is impossible to talk about a political settlement without stopping the bloodshed.

Now, in my opinion, we are all facing a different task, which is technically and I would even say technologically completing the creation of these de-escalation zones, agreeing on their boundaries and how government bodies will function there, as well as how these de-escalation zones will communicate with the outside world.

Incidentally, President Macron mentioned this when he was speaking about humanitarian aid convoys. Generally, I believe that the French President is right and it is one of the points of contact where we can cooperate with our French colleagues. Once the de-escalation zones are formalised, I do hope that at least some elements of cooperation will begin between the government and those people who will control the de-escalation zones.

I really hope (and what I am about to say is very important) that these zones do not become a prototype for the future territorial division in Syria. On the contrary, I expect that these de-escalation zones, if peace is established, and the people who will be controlling them, will cooperate with the official Syrian authorities.

This is how an environment of basic interaction and cooperation can and must be built. The next step is a purely political reconciliation and, if possible, the development of constitutional regulations, a constitution and holding elections.

Question: Indeed, Russia and the other parties differ on the Syrian issue regarding primarily the fate of Bashar al-Assad, whom the Western countries have accused of using chemical weapons against his own people.

Mr President, can you envision Syria’s political future without Bashar al-Assad?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think I have the right to determine the political future of Syria, be it with or without al-Assad. This is for the Syrians themselves to decide. Nobody has the right to claim the rights that belong to the people of another country. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

Do you have an additional question?

Question: Yes, I do. You say that this is not your decision. However, this does not mean that Syria’s future is possible without al-Assad, does it?

Vladimir Putin: As I have said, this is for the Syrian people to decide. You have mentioned allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. When the attack happened, we called on our American partners – and everyone else who considers this to be expedient – to send inspectors to the airfield from which the planes that dropped chemical bombs allegedly took off.

If chemical weapons were used by President al-Assad’s official agencies, modern verification equipment would certainly find traces of this at the airfield. For certain. These traces would be found in the aircraft and at the airfield. However, everyone refused to conduct such an inspection.

We also proposed sending inspectors to the site of the alleged chemical attack. But they refused as well, claiming that it was dangerous. Why is this dangerous if the attack was delivered at an area where peaceful civilians live and the healthy part of the armed opposition is deployed?

In my opinion, the accusations have been made for the sole purpose of justifying the use of additional measures, including military ones, against al-Assad. That is all. There is no proof that al-Assad has used chemical weapons. We firmly believe that that this is a provocation. President al-Assad did not use chemical weapons.

Question: Do you remember what President Macron said about the red lines with regard to chemical weapons? Do you agree with him?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I do.

Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organisations, the international community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons impossible for anyone.

Question: After Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, many people spoke about a new era in Russian-US relations. However, these relations do not seem to have made a new start. The NATO leaders spoke about the Russian threat at their summit last week.

Are you disappointed by the US attitude?

Vladimir Putin: No, I am not. We had no special expectations. The US President is steering a traditional US policy. Of course, we remember that during his election campaign, and also after he was elected and assumed office, President Trump spoke about his intention to normalise the relationship with Russia and said that it cannot be any worse. We remember this.

However, we also see and realise that the political situation in the United States is influenced by those who have lost the elections but refuse to accept their defeat, and who continue to use the anti-Russia card and various allegations most actively in the political infighting. This is why we are in no hurry, we are ready to wait, yet we strongly hope that Russian-US relations will become normal again sometime in the future.

As for increasing…

Question: In a perfect world, what would you expect the United States to do to improve relations with Russia?

Vladimir Putin: There is no such thing as a perfect world, and there is no subjunctive mood in politics.

I would like to answer the second part of your question, regarding plans to increase military spending by 2 percent or more. It is a fact that the US defence budget is larger than the defence budgets of all other countries taken together. This is why I understand the US President when he says that his NATO allies should take over part of this burden. It is a pragmatic and understandable approach.

However, what attracted my attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against? I see an inner contradiction here, although this is not our business.

Let NATO decide who will pay and how much. We have our own defence to deal with, and we are working to ensure it reliably and with a view to the future. We feel confident.

Question: However, regarding NATO, some of your neighbours want to ensure their security through NATO. Is this a sign of mistrust to you, something that causes a scandalous attitude?

Vladimir Putin: For us this is a sign that our partners in Europe and in the United States are, pardon me, pursuing a short-sighted policy. They do not have the habit of looking one step ahead. Our Western partners have lost this habit.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western politicians told us (it was not documented on paper but stated quite clearly) that NATO would not expand to the East. Some German politicians at the time even proposed creating a new security system in Europe that would involve the United States and, by the way, Russia.

If that had been done, we would not have the problems we have had in recent years, which is NATO’s expansion to the East up to our borders, the advance of military infrastructure to our borders. Perhaps, the United States would not have unilaterally withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This treaty was a cornerstone of current and future security. The missile defence facilities in Europe – in Poland and Romania – would not have been built, which, undoubtedly, creates a threat to our strategic nuclear forces and disrupts the strategic balance – an extremely dangerous development for international security. Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie.

We have to proceed from the current situation. In this respect, we need to think about what we want from the future. I think we all want security, peace, safety and cooperation. Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.

You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues.

What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia.

Question: You are saying that more could be done regarding terrorism and Islamism. But what exactly should be done and what can Russia do? And why is it so hard to work with Europe to achieve these goals?

Vladimir Putin: Ask Europe. We are willing to cooperate, as I said a while ago at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, when I called on all countries to unite their efforts to fight terrorism. However, this is a very complex issue.

Look, after the Paris terrorist attack, a bloody and horrible event, President Hollande came to Russia and we agreed on cooperative actions. The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier approached the Syrian coast. Then, Francois headed to Washington, while the Charles de Gaulle left for the Suez Canal.

So real cooperation with France ended before it even started. France is involved in operations there, but it is acting within the US-led coalition. Go figure who gives the orders, and who is not, who has a say, and what the agenda is. Russia is open to cooperation.

It was also very difficult to agree on these issues with the US. Incidentally, we have been seeing some shifts lately; and there are actual results. I spoke to President Trump on the telephone, and he supported the idea, in general, of creating de-escalation zones.

We are now considering how the interests of all the countries to the south of Syria can be best served, with consideration for the concerns of all the countries that face issues in this region. I am referring to Jordan, Israel and Syria itself. Of course, Russia is ready to heed what the United States and our European partners have to say. However, what we need is for the dialogue to be specific and concise, instead of empty talk about mutual claims and threats. There is a need for a real effort.

Question: You are saying that they are the ones who need to decide and act, right?

Vladimir Putin: That is exactly the way it is.

Question: You have mentioned the United States. The allegations of Russia’s interference in the US presidential race raised a political storm in Washington. Similar allegations were also voiced in France. What is your response, especially against the backdrop of recent developments in the US?

Vladimir Putin: I have already commented on this issue many times. There was a question on this topic from one of your colleagues today. He put it very cautiously at the news conference, saying that ‘there are allegations that Russian hackers…’ Who is making these allegations? Based on what? If these are just allegations, then these hackers could be from anywhere else and not necessarily from Russia.

As President Trump once said, and I think that he was totally right when he said it could have been someone sitting on their bed or somebody intentionally inserted a flash drive with the name of a Russian national, or something like that. Anything is possible in this virtual world. Russia never engages in activities of this kind, and we do not need it. It makes no sense for us to do such things. What for?

I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration.

Changing things is not easy, and I say this without any irony. It is not that someone does not want to, but because it is a hard thing to do. Take Obama, a forward-thinking man, a liberal, a democrat. Did he not pledge to shut down Guantanamo before his election? But did he do it? No, he did not. And may I ask why not? Did he not want to do it? He wanted to, I am sure he did, but it did not work out. He sincerely wanted to do it, but did not succeed, since it turned out to be very complicated.

This is not the main issue, however, even though it is important, since it is hard to fathom that people have been walking there in chains for decades without trial or investigation. Can you imagine France or Russia acting this way? This would have been a disaster. But it is possible in the United States and continues to this day. This refers to the question on democracy, by the way.

I referred to this example just to show that it is not as simple as it may seem. That said, I am cautiously optimistic, and I think that we can and should be able to reach agreements on key issues.

Question: You are saying that right now, the political storm in Washington rests on absolutely unsubstantiated allegations.

Vladimir Putin: It is not based on allegations, but on the desire of those who lost the elections in the United States to at least improve their standing through anti-Russia attacks, by accusing Russia of interference. The people who lost the elections do not want to admit that they really lost, that the one who won was closer to the people and better understood what ordinary voters want.

They are absolutely reluctant to admit this, and prefer deluding themselves and others into thinking it was not their fault, that their policy was correct, they did all the right things, but someone from the outside thwarted them. But it was not so. They just lost and they have to admit it.

When they do, I think it will be easier for us to work. However, the fact that this is being done using anti-Russia tools is not good, as it brings discord into international affairs. Let them argue among themselves, so they can prove who is stronger, who is better, who is smarter, who is more reliable and who sets a better policy for the country. Why involve third countries? This is very distressing. But it will pass, everything passes, and this will pass as well.

Question: Mr President, we are close to the end of our interview. Most of all I would like to ask you a question about 2018. This is the year of elections in Russia – presidential elections, and elections to the Federal Assembly.

Could you tell us if you intend to run, o perhaps the opposition would be able to nominate someone in a democratic procedure? How do you see the development of this situation? You do want next year’s campaign to unfold in a truly democratic environment, don’t you? I am talking about 2018.

Vladimir Putin: All the recent election campaigns in Russia have been in strict accordance with the Russian Constitution, in strict compliance. And I will make every effort to ensure that the 2018 election campaigns are conducted in the same way, I repeat, in strict accordance with the law and the Constitution.

So anyone entitled to run, anyone who fulfils the relevant procedures prescribed by law, can and will participate, if they wish, in elections at all levels – to legislative assemblies, to parliament, and in presidential elections.

As for the candidates, it is still too early to talk about it.

Question: Thank you. I hope we will see you soon, thank you very much for sharing your views with Le Figaro.

 

Zakharova blasts CNN smear campaign against rumored ‘spy’ – Russia’s envoy to Washington

Trump Is Fighting For His Life

By Philip Giraldi

May 16, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  President Donald Trump is not exactly known for his self-restraint. The recent firing of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey was not handled with any delicacy and has unleashed a firestorm of criticism coming from across the political spectrum. And since Comey’s abrupt dismissal the backstabbing has become even worse, with many coming around to the view that Trump is actually crudely threatening Comey over the issue of what might or might not have been said at dinners and meetings between the two men.

What exactly drove the firing at this time remains somewhat of a mystery though the media has been quick to link it directly to Trump’s reported anger at the seemingly endless investigation into his Administration’s possible ties to Russia, an investigation that nominally Comey headed as FBI Director. But that explanation somehow makes no sense as even a white-hot Trump would have realized that getting rid of Comey would only make the Russiagate problem worse as everyone would assume cover-up and would come after the White House with even greater intensity, which is precisely what has happened. Was Trump dumb enough to dig himself into a deeper hole? Possibly, but it seems unlikely.

What is real, however, is that constant innuendo means that anti-Russian hysteria has been mounting, including completely speculative pieces wondering whether the entourage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during last week’s visit.

And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.

President Trump has also been insisting that the “Russian thing” is a made-up story, a view that I happen to agree with. I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as “showboating.”

Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.

Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a “Deep State” combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present “proof” that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.

Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10th whether we are seeing is “Watergate redux or ‘Deep State’ coup?” and then followed up with a second Piece “The ‘Soft Coup’ of Russia-gate” on the 13th. In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon’s firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any “high crimes and misdemeanors” to force his removal from office. Like Parry, I am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.

Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey’s role in the “coup” was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.

Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow’s intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless, anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west’s interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.

Parry’s point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing down Trump “legally” through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also fit.

The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment. The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done “for the good of the country” and to “correct a mistake made by the American voters.” The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.

So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus’s use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What’s your response? –  Scroll down to add / read comments 

A Russian Journalist’s Perspective

By David Swanson

May 15, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Dmitri Babich has worked as a journalist in Russia since 1989, for newspapers, news agencies, radio, and television. He says that he used to always interview people, while lately people interview him.

According to Babich, myths about Russian media, such as that one cannot criticize the president in Russia, can be dispelled simply by visiting Russian news websites and using Google Translator. More newspapers in Russia oppose Putin than support him, Babich says.

If Russian news is propaganda, Babich asks, why are people so afraid of it? Was anyone ever afraid of Brezhnev’s propaganda? (One might reply that it wasn’t available on the internet or television.) In Babich’s view the threat of Russian news lies in its accuracy, not in its falsehood. In the 1930s, he says, French and British media, in good “objective” style, suggested that Hitler wasn’t anything much to worry about. But the Soviet media had Hitler right. (On Stalin perhaps not so much.)

Today, Babich suggests, people are making the same mistake that the British and French media made back then, failing to appropriately stand up to a dangerous ideology. What ideology? That of neoliberal militarism. Babich points to the swift response of NATO and the Washington establishment to any proposals from Donald Trump to ease up on hostility toward Russia.

Babich is not naive about Trump. While he says that Barack Obama was decidedly the worst U.S. president ever, he does not predict great things from Trump. Obama, Babich explains, had incompetence to match his militarism. He imposed sanctions on Russia that hurt the most pro-Western organizations. “He became a victim of his own propaganda.”

I asked Babich why I’d heard such positive comments on Trump from so many Russians. His answer: “Unrequited love for the U.S.,” and “hope,” and the thought that because Trump won he must be smarter than he seems. “People hate to wake up,” Babich concluded.

Pressed on how people could possibly place hope in Trump, Babich said that because Russia has never been colonized (despite Sweden and Napoleon and Hitler trying), Russians are only now learning what Africans colonized by the West understood about the colonizers.

Asked why Russia would make alliances with China and Iran, Babich replied that the U.S. and E.U. wouldn’t have Russia, so it is taking its second choices.

Asked about Russian journalists who have been killed, Babich said that while more were killed in the time of Boris Yeltsin, he has two theories. One is that an opponent of Putin’s is responsible. Babich named a politician who died around the time of the last killing. The other theory is that people enraged by the media are responsible. Babich said he couldn’t take seriously the idea that Putin would himself be responsible for killing someone right next to the Kremlin.

Asked about the approach of RT (Russia Today) television, Babich said that the approach of the news agency Ria Novosti of trying to imitate the New York Times gained no followers because people can already just read the New York Times. By opposing U.S. crimes and giving voice to alternative perspectives RT has found an audience. I think this interpretation is borne out by the CIA report earlier this year hyping the danger of RT. If the U.S. media were providing the news, Americans wouldn’t look for news elsewhere.

Babich and I discussed these and other topics on the RT show “Crosstalk” on Sunday.

CrossTalk: Bullhorns on Hysteria

This article was first published by David Swanson . Org

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

If the U.S. Attacks, Russia Will Support North Korea

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What’s your response? –  Scroll down to add / read comments 

WHO WAS BEHIND THE FIRING OF FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY? WHAT POLITICAL INTERESTS ARE BEING SERVED? WHO IS ANDREW MCCABE?

14.05.2017
James Comey

James Comey

Written by Prof Michel Chossudovsky; Originally appeared at Global Research

The recommendation to fire Comey did not emanate from the White House. It was an initiative of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who prepared a three page memorandum, which  criticized James Comey for his handling of the Clinton email investigation and the release of his October 28, 2016 Second Letter to Congress 11 days before Election Day.

The Attorney General’s office visibly acted in defiance of the White House.

1. Trump was manipulated into accepting and endorsing the Attorney General’s initiative. The media relentlessly displayed a narrative of personal confrontation between Comey and Trump. The propaganda campaign contributed quite deliberately to triggering personal divisions between Trump and Comey.  According to the Independent (May 11, 2017) quoting FBI insiders: “James Comey was fired by Donald Trump because of his refusal to end the investigation into links between Russia and the US leader’s presidential campaign team…”

That authoritative explanation –which pervades the Western media– is contradictory and nonsensical. It fails to address the fact that Trump did not decide to fire Comey.

2. What was the purpose of firing Comey: Cui Bono?  Who was behind it?  That decision served the interests of the Neocons. It was motivated by US foreign policy and US-Russia relations. It was taken by the Attorney General’s office  overriding the Presidency, precisely with a view to removing potential obstacles to the conduct of the Fake “Trump-Moscow collusion” investigation. In this regard, Comey was slated to be removed. He was viewed as unpredictable and uncooperative. Moreover, the decision was also intended to weaken the presidency.

13. The comparison with President Richard Nixon‘s firing of special prosecutor Archibal
d Cox
is a red herring (a media diversion) because it was not president Trump who took the decision to fire James Comey. Moreover, the alleged collusion between Moscow and Trump is FAKE. It cannot reasonably be compared to the Watergate investigation, which Nixon attempted to block.

4. A pro-forma letter was sent by President Trump to FBI Director James Comey, which casually endorsed the recommendation of the office of the Attorney General.

Trump did not express his opinion other than supporting the recommendations drafted by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (see screen shot of Trump’s letter below and letter of Jeff Sessions to Trump)

1

2

For complete documents including Rosenstein’s report click here 

5. Does the firing of Comey serve the interests of President Trump? The answer is NO. The firing of Comey was intended to weaken the president and provide ammunition to the smear campaign against himThe Attorney General’s  recommendation to fire Comey will eventually backlash on President  Trump  in the context of the Russia Probe, namely the investigation into the FAKE collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

6. In all likelihood  more compliant replacement candidates for the position of FBI director were contemplated PRIOR to Comey’s  dismissal.

7. Who instructed AG Jeff Sessions to make this decision? Not the White House. What political interests are being served?

Ironically, the Democrats have raised the broader issue of the alleged “Russian hacking” of the DNC pointing to the fact that the firing of Comey will jeopardize “the integrity of the investigation”. In recent developments they are calling for the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to take over the investigation into “Russian meddling” prior to the appointment of a new FBI Director.

8. Following the firing of James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has become Acting Director of the FBI pending the confirmation of an “interim” director (and eventually a new director). The relationship between McCabe and Comey is central to an understanding of the James Comey saga.

Divisions within the FBI

This crisis hinges on an understanding of profound political rivalries as well as divisions within the FBI pertaining both to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s  State Department email trove as well as to the Russian meddling allegations.

Was Comey “uncooperative” as underscored by several Congressional Democrats in March expressing an “independent” perspective with regard to the investigation into Russia’s alleged support of the Trump election campaign?

Democrats allege that perhaps Comey is biased: They say he was perfectly willing to talk about Hillary Clinton’s emails — though Comey says he commented in that case because it was a closed investigation. Others have said the director is simply being uncooperative.(Washington Post, March 19, 2017)

What was his stance with respect to Hillary’s email trove? Both his First Letter (July 2016) and Second Letter (October 28, 2016) were detrimental to Hillary’s presidential candidacy. It should be understood that the FBI “Russia Probe” and the Hillary investigation are intimately related. One does not go without the other. 

 Flashback to October-November 2016

Let’s recall some important events leading up to James Comey’s Second Letter to the US Congress regarding the investigation into Hillary’s email trove.

There were serious divisions within the FBI between James Comey and his Number Two Man Andrew McCabe.

1Who is FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe? (image left) What is his role? Whose interests is he serving?

There were pressures from the Obama administration as well as attempts from within the FBI to block the investigation into Hillary’s emails, not to mention the fraudulent transactions of the Clinton Foundation. There were also divisions within the investigating team headed by Andrew McCabe.

James Comey was fully aware that Andrew McCabe had been coopted by Hillary Clinton, promoted to the FBI’s Number Two position and put in charge of the  investigation of Hillary’s emails.

What motivated the release of the Second Letter to the US Congress, which according to the Democrats contributed to jeopardizing Hillary’s candidacy?

In his Second Letter, Comey called for steps allowing the FBI “to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

The second letter by FBI Director Comey came as a Bombshell. Comey’s initiative points this time to the possibility that a candidate to the presidency of the United States be under criminal investigation by the FBI.

The Second letter pertaining to the Emails opens up a “Pandora’s box” of fraud, corruption, bribery and money laundering. …

This does not solely pertain to the Email scandal, the FBI  “has an open investigation into the Clinton Foundation”, which constitutes a hotbed of fraud …” Moreover, a class action lawsuit was launched against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) “alleging fraud and collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign”. And a lot more….(including mysterious deaths). (Michel Chossudovsky, Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game? Global Research, November 1, 2016)

What triggered Comey’s October 28 decision, less than two weeks before the elections?

Hillary’s “donation” of close to half a million dollars to Andrew McCabe’s wife as well as his “conflict of interest” were made public, following a damning report by the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ report revealed that “Clinton friend [Virginia Governor] Terry McAuliffe donated money to a [senior] FBI investigator’s wife when she ran for office” . Governor Terry McAuliffe transferred the money on behalf of Hillary Clinton:

“Last night’s revelation that close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe authorized $675,000 to the wife of a top official at the FBI, who conveniently was promoted to deputy director, and helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s secret server is deeply disturbing and calls into question the entire investigation,” Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications adviser, said in a statement, The Hill reported. “The fact that this was allowed to occur shows either outright negligent behavior by the FBI or a level of corruption that is beyond belief.The FBI needs to fully address these issues as soon as possible.” (UPI, October 24, 2016, emphasis added)

2

The “donation” went to the 2015 Virginia state Senate election campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who just so happens to be the wife of FBI official Andrew McCabe who a few months later in January 2016–  was appointed deputy director of the FBI. McCabe was also put in charge of the Clinton Email investigation. How convenient (See WSJ, October 24, 2016).

Hillary Clinton had attempted to “buy legal immunity” by “coopting” a senior police official, a practice which has been widely applied by US organized crime. The only difference is that Clinton was a candidate to the presidency of the United States.

Andrew McCabe became Hillary’s Trojan Horse within the FBI.

Upon the release of the WSJ report, FBI Director Comey, responding to pressure from within the FBI, also with a view to protecting his authority, decided to release a second letter regarding the Clinton Emails.

Did this release have the support of  Andrew McCabe who was leading the Hillary investigation (on behalf of Hillary)?. Unlikely.

Whether Comey was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign by releasing damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton eleven days before the election remains to be firmly established. Unquestionably, however, the Second Letter was detrimental to Clinton’s presidential candidacy. And Trump at the height of the Election campaign acknowledged Comey’s courage: “he showed guts”, according to candidate Trump and earned his “respect”. What explain’s his about turn? Why did he accept the recommendations of the Attorney General’s office at face value?

The fact of the matter is that James Comey with some ambiguity took a stance which recognized the need to investigate Hillary Clinton’s  alleged criminal wrongdoings, which were being investigated under the helm of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

The Role of the Wall Street Journal

The timing of Comey’s decision to release the Second Letter less than two weeks before the elections was  crucial. But it was ultimately the WSJ (and those behind the release of the report on the Clinton-McAuliffe-McCabe affair) which determined the “conflict of interest” of Andrew McCabe who was in charge of the Clinton investigation (on behalf of Hillary). The WSJ is owned by the News Corp conglomerate, one of the most powerful global media groups owned by the Murdoch Family Trust. Rupert Murdoch is a firm supporter of Donald Trump.

For further details see

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game? By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 01, 2016 

Why was James Comey fired? 

Was Comey “uncooperative” in the investigation into the Russian hacking allegations? Opinions are divided on this issue. What is significant is that Comey had not been “co-opted” in the same way as McCabe. And that’s why they wanted him out.

While Comey’s “October Surprise” may have benefited the Trump campaign, the actions of his Deputy Andrew McCabe (who was in charge of the investigation into Hillary’s emails) were geared towards obfuscating Hillary Clinton’s alleged crimes as well as protecting her candidacy (on behalf of the Neocons and her corporate sponsors).

Andrew McCabe was in “conflict of interest”. This is something which Donald Trump raised during the election campaign following the release of the WSJ article.

11

Comey’s actions were acknowledged by Trump on October 28, 2016 following the release of the Second Letter. During the election campaign Trump “hailed the October 28 letter as an action in which Comey “showed guts”. (See Patrick Martin,  World Socialist Website, May 10, 2017)

“This Is Bigger than Watergate” said Trump.

Comey had Trump’s support during the election campaign.

1

What can be said about James Comey is that he did not act as a political proxy (on behalf of the Neocons) in releasing his Second Letter.

And that is why he was fired.

The Appointment of the Next FBI director

The divisions within the FBI both during the election and its aftermath are intimately related to ongoing political rivalries. And that applies to the appointment of the next FBI director.

At this stage an Interim FBI Director is sought to replace Acting Director McCabe. But McCabe is also a candidate for that position. The moment an interim director is appointed pending Senate approval of a new FBI director, the acting director will be replaced by the interim director.

According to the WSJ, “the temporary chief [interim director] will immediately find himself at the epicenter of the politically fraught investigation into potential collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Kremlin…”

The Neocons seek Compliance

Why is this selection process so important?

What is sought by the Neocons is that the person in charge of the FBI must be fully compliant in conducting the fake investigation against Moscow meddling,  while also focussing on the collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

The stakes are high. A power-play is ongoing which has a bearing on the mainstay of US Foreign Policy, which consists in  confronting Moscow as well threatening to wage war on Russia.

To sustain their diabolical foreign policy design, the Department of Justice will no doubt seek once again to bypass Donald Trump. As in the case of  the firing of Comey, they will push for the selection of a reliable crony to head the FBI with a view to:

1) Actively pursuing the Fake Russia meddling investigation without the FBI acting “independently”. This objective is central to the Deep State’s confrontational foreign policy agenda against Russia. The Dems are pushing for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

2) Eventually close down the investigation into Hillary’s email trove (bear in mind that the Russia and Hillary investigations are interrelated).

3) Use the Russia election meddling investigation to reignite the smear campaign against Trump, portraying him as an instrument of Moscow. That process would not have occurred in the same way with James Comey as head of the FBI.

Already, the Stage has been Set in the wake of Comey’s demise. The door is now open to smearing Trump and his immediate political entourage:

 “The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and is looking at sensitive questions about whether anyone in Mr. Trump’s orbit may have coordinated with Russia.” (WSJ, May 12, 2017)

What the Neocons and their allies at the Department of Justice are seeking is a “reliable proxy” to take on the position of interim FBI director.

Comey was fired because he was “unpredictable”. He could not be relied upon to fully endorse the two investigations, one of which had been entrusted to Andrew McCabe (acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton).

Several candidates have been interviewed by AG Jeff Sessions including Clinton’s Trojan Horse Andrew McCabe whose candidacy is supported by the Neocons, yet visibly opposed by President Trump. On the other hand, Trump has interviewed potential candidates in the Oval office.

What must be underscored is that the firing of James Comey suggests that president Trump is either unable or unwilling to take important decisions.

Was Trump aware of the fact that the Sessions-Rosenstein recommendation was ultimately intended to smear him and weaken his presidency?

No doubt Andrew McCabe will be among the Neocons preferred candidates acting on their behalf as proxies. At first glance, McCabe’s appointment appears unlikely. Trump has reason to be dead against him. But the question is whether president Trump will refuse or accept the recommendation of the Attorney General in regards to the candidacy of McCabe or another crony put forth by the Neocons.

One suspects that the candidacy of Andrew McCabe as interim director of the FBI had already been contemplated at an earlier stage prior to the firing of James Comey on May 9, 2017. Update: Andrew McCabe is part of the short list for the position of director of the FBI

 

Who was defeated in the Great Patriotic war?

Who was defeated in the Great Patriotic war?

by Scott Humor

Sergey Shoigu , the Russia’s Minister of Defense, issued an order to congratulate servicemen and veterans with the Victory Day

 

May 9th Victory Day Parade on Red Square 2017 (FULL VIDEO)

President Putin’s speech at 17:30 with English voice over

This morning I got a message from Veritas: “Thanks Scott.

I am sitting here watching the Victory Parade live – VVP’s speech this year was different in tone. He was stern and passionate – it was a message to those outside of Russia too. Never on our soil again – he was stressing. The planes have been grounded due to weather sadly, but at least the rehearsals would have shown the planes and helicopters.

I truly believe the elections in France and especially the UK are to get the war parties in or maintained. This nonsense about Brexit – it’s about May getting a majority in the Commons to go to war. That is why there has been a sudden snap election – everyone is being manipulated. I feel VVP’s speech today was a sign of this…….this is why the UN info  is so important – history repeats itself…..yet again….”

 

1,000s of troops, state-of-the-art weaponry parade through Moscow on V-Day (PHOTOS, FULL VIDEO)

During the celebration with the veterans of the Great Patriotic in Kremlin, Putin made a statement  about a fate of the Russian people if the Nazi Germany would win the war.

“This sacred holiday is celebrated by all of Russia. And it is clear why.

It is not just the many millions of victims which our people sacrificed on the altar of Victory. If our country would have succumbed to the terrible tragedy and, like many other European countries, suffered defeat, a totally different fate would have awaited us than the enslaved countries of the European continent. It was not only a question of the existence of our country, it was a question of the existence of our people as an ethnos.

And we are well aware of this from the documents of the Nazi party and the fascist state which are still stored in archives. Those who were not used for slave labour would have been subject either to physical elimination, plain and simple, or resettlement to remote regions without any infrastructure where they would have been doomed to gradual extinction.

This is what we must always remember when we talk about the truth of the Second World War, the Great Patriotic War, when we speak about the victims which our people sacrificed on the altar of Victory, as I already mentioned. This is something we must never forget. This is the most important thing.”

=========

Let’s remember that it was not Germany alone that attacked us, but all European nations took a part in this war against us.

What moved those ordinary Europeans? Why did they decide to put on military overcoats, to take weapons in their hands and to invade our motherland?

On June 22nd, 1941 all of the radio stations of Germany were broadcasting the following announcement made by Hitler:

 

National Socialists!

You probably all felt that this was a bitter and difficult step for me. The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist worldview to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means.

The results of their efforts, in every nation, were only chaos, misery, and starvation.

I, on the other hand, have tried for two decades to build a new socialist order in Germany, with a minimum of interference and without harming our productive capacity. This has not only eliminated unemployment, but also the profits of labor have flowed increasingly to working people.

The results of our policies are unique in all the world. Our economic and social reorganization has led to the systematic elimination of social and class barriers, with the goal of a true people’s community.

<…>

I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe.

Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control.”

You can read the full speech here. It’s very long, confusing and anticlimactic, as everything that Hitler wrote, and you can discover a remarkable wording identical to those of the U.S. defense news and the U.S. senate speeches.

 

The attack on the Soviet Union early in the morning of June 22nd 1941 were involved:

the German formations: 153 divisions, 600,000 of motorized units, 3580 tanks, 7184 guns, 2740 aircraft;

12 divisions and 10 brigades of Romania,

18 Finnish divisions;

3 Hungarian brigade;

two and a half Slovak brigades;

later joined by 3 Italian teams and the Spanish “Blue division”.

Besides Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Italians, Slovaks and Spaniards who attacked our country in their national divisions and brigades, in the ranks of Nazi troops that broke into our land there were hundreds of thousands of French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Danes, Norwegians, Bulgarians, Croats, Luxembourgers, Jews, etc.

All European nations, with some rare exception, treacherously and suddenly attacked us and began ruthlessly killing civilians.

From a remarkable collection of letters coming from the invaders back home in summer of 1941.

 

From the diary of Joseph Goebbels (9-15 July 1941)

“…The Fuhrer is extremely pleased that disguise of the preparations for the Eastern campaign was quite successful, and the entire maneuver was performed with incredible sneakiness.

…Preliminary results suggests that the war in the East has been largely won: two-third of the Bolshevik forces have been already destroyed or badly frayed… five-sixths of the air and armored forces can already be considered destroyed.

…The repetition of the fate of Napoleon impossible, though — the irony! — we are opposing the Bolshevism that night, when Napoleon crossed the Russian border.

…The Fuhrer intends to erase from the face of the earth cities like Moscow, Kiev and St. Petersburg. And it is necessary! For if we want to dismember Russia into separate parts, this huge state should not have any spiritual, or political, or economic center.

…Moscow be wiped off the face of the earth, and in its place we will make a giant water reservoir in order to destroy all memory of this city and what it was.”

—-

Letter of Lieutenant Ewald Lassen (July 2)

Dear brother Freddy! Everything is wonderful! Our company at first crossed the river Bug, and destroyed 3 border bunkers, and on the first day of fighting advanced 40 kilometers in…

It’s been already a week and a half as we have been fighting and moving forward. Raging fires are everywhere, and there are huge black pillars of smoke.

Any compassion towards the Russians is impossible, we exterminate fleeing Russians in huge quantities. There are thousands of corpses lying in the fields, on the roads and in the villages. No one removes or buries them. We should be glad that the führer fooled Stalin and hit sooner, than the Russians were prepared to repel our attacks, because if they were ready, the things wouldn’t go so well for us. Now it is clear that the outcome of the war is predetermined, and Russia sang it’s last song.

Every day confirms the words of the greatest of men our commander Adolf Hitler that this war is a crusade against the Bolsheviks and Jews is the most sacred of all wars in German history and for this reason we scarify everything.

What a joy to feel involved in the defeat of this state and its Red Army…

=======

Letter from corporal troops “SS” Willie Steube (23 July)

Dear mother! Ukraine is a fabulously rich land, the fat black Ukrainian earth was created by God for the German ploughs. Ukraine could feed not only Germany, but all the annexed countries and territories.

We live here like gods. Chickens, geese, eggs, roast, butter, cream, sour cream, juices, wine, honey — every day.

But to take it from the hands of these dirty and sick people are dangerous and scary:  I couldn’t put anything in your mouth they offer, so we take it all by yourself. It’s very simple, without much discussion, but following the German purity. If we want meat, we take an alive pig and slaughter it, the same with calf or geese. If we want fresh milk, we milk the cows. If we want honey, we get it right from its comb, and doing it so cleverly, that not a single bee would bite.

Right now my friend calls me, he opened a hive and I am dying to try fresh honey. We have every right to believe that all this wealth and abundance belongs to us. If someone does not like it, we just stick a gun between their teeth and they go silent. The same our soldiers do when they need a woman. As you know, while we’re here we don’t have to polite with this lowlifes. They are especially afraid of us  the “SS” forces.

I feel like a winner every step of the way, it feels amazingly nice to show that we the Germans, are the lords and absolute owners of everything around us. I  like this kind of life very much.

============

Letter from corporal Walter Koch (July 28)

My priceless treasure! For a month we advanced East 750 km, all goes according to the Fuhrer’s plan, and in August we should be in Moscow. After the surrender of Russia, it will be the British turn and then America’s.

The commander of our battalion, major Seifert is convinced that every Russian should be killed everywhere, and we have this task performed.

Tomorrow I’ll send you another parcel. I have prepared the following things.[A list of children clothes and household items follows.]

The blue, almost new suit for our little Puni, there are some blood stains. I’m sorry, my heart’s treasure, but we are in the field, to wouldn’t be that difficult for you to get rid of blood stains with the help of my uncle Herbert.

You wrote about some paintings in gilded frames and other art objects. I remember this all the time, but found nothing suitable so far. Nothing good or valuable, nothing you dream of for our cozy place.

I kiss both of you long and strong kiss.

Your daddy Walter

============

Letter from the head of a group of chroniclers chief-cameraman Otto Lange

The materials that we have sent demonstrate that you are totally missing out on one of the major issues in our propaganda.

You strive to capture the victorious advance of our troops and make it highly professional. However, you ignored the most important task. We should immediately, clearly and convincingly show to the German people and all of the Europe, that Soviet Russia is a multimillion assemblage of  racially inferior and  degenerat bastards: Jews and Asians, who represent a terrible danger to civilized humanity.

In this aspect, pay attention to the experience of Dr. Muller, who in Ukraine found in one mental hospital two dozen of mentally ill,  and dressed them into the uniforms of commanders and commissars of the Red Army. He photographed them under  different angles, dirty and unshaven, and created the whole gallery of disgusting, repulsive, aggressive idiots that makes a strong impression.

Also, what deserves your attention is the work of Dr. Hecker, of filming the  civilian population near Minsk. For greater credibility he used accompanying text of the chronicles and make them look even more disgusting by dressing those civilians in rags: old sweaters, torn jackets. The men are unshaven, barefoot, in dirty shirts, without ties, holding their falling down pants, since he took their belts. Unkempt women with the brutal expression on the faces we made to hold axes and pitchforks. These images also evoked an active distaste and disgust.

Of course, there should not be a template, maybe you can create a variety of solutions. However, when photographing the Russian prisoners of war and local population it is necessary to try to show the ugliest of Jewish and Asian types, whose faces express anger and hatred and can cause in response only similar sentiments, and, above all, disgust and hatred.

I hope that my views expressed in this letter will help you in your productive future;

Heil Hitler!

Your Henry Demel.

====================

From the letters of the Germans to the eastern front

To Ober-Lieutenant Heinz Heidenreich/ Neuhausen, June 29, 1941

My dear boy!

You participated in the battle for Smolensk? Three time I watched chronicled in “Vohenshau”. What a grandiose view! On the screen tanks were moving, guns rumbled, and our  tanned, dusty, smiling young men in shirts with rolled elbow-length sleeves, among them I was hoping to see you my favorite person. And then the field that has been littered with corpses of Russians, and the columns of prisoners of war. Those horrible alive Russians, they look like beasts, just looking at these creatures we can see the horror, a horrible mob that you must fight! Their country is so terrible, so terrible that I don’t know how you and your soldiers are moving forward there.

When I see this on the screen, only then I realize what you, poor boys have to endure. However, I hope that the greatest challenges are already behind you, Moscow will fall soon and the war will end. I pray daily for your return. Send you greetings and kisses with a caring love — your mother.

======================

to the Lieutenant Nola Franz (Munich, 19 July 1941)

My dear! I have received your letters No. 4 n No. 5, and No. 3 is still not here.  Parcel No. 57 of June 30, No. 12 dated July 4, and No. 86 dated July 9, I got one too. The clothing and footwear from Russia do not have decent quality, clumsy and ugly. Do you think that  I’m going to wear this?..  The Corporal Kurtof  sent Mitzi three massive gold rings, pendant with large diamonds and fur of a beautiful silver fox. This has value. Mitzi gave me an advice: if you occasionally send gold and precious stones, to avoid possible hassles at the border, where the luggage of the soldiers are being examined quite carefully, it’s the best to stick jewelry into a bar of soap.

On the radio right now there is an emergency message broadcasting about new major victories in the East. This is epic! What a great happiness to be these days a German! Keep on, but be careful!

Your Elfriede.

=================

To the Feldwebel Kurt Hesse (July 22, 1941)

My dear hubby! Now, the direct road to Moscow is opened. Moscow is a big city, with a huge number of prostitutes, dirty and contagious. I understand that a young, healthy man need a relief time from time. In two little parcels I’ve sent you 3 cakes, 2 apples, cookies, a bag of sausage, cigarettes, and 20 condoms. If you love me and little Rosie, don’t do anything without them. This should be enough for awhile.

I send you many greetings and passionate kisses.

Your wife Irma.

=========

To the chief Leitenanta Richard Lange (Germic, July 30, 1941)

Dear boy! The newsreel that we watch 2-3 times a week, each time, horrified by an unprecedented poverty, abominable roads and unseemly types, with which you have to deal with. Oh, these terrible, criminal, stupid faces, apparently all Jews. And then some women with guns and pathetic, starving children, sick and infested with parasites. Whether these creatures and their entire criminal state has any right to exist?

Imagine, Richard, that on these territories there are people, or rather, the large apes that think that their bestial existence is the Paradise.

The movie theaters are filled starting with early morning. Every German wants to enjoy the sight of your victories in Russia and to see our enemies being brought to their knees. Even I, a kind middle-aged woman, a devout and exemplary Catholic, am getting a great satisfaction watching thousands of prisoners walking along the roads, these criminal types, and especially I enjoy the sight of countless corpses. I watch every newsreels for 3-4 times. Yeah, I’m not ashamed to say that the corpses of the enemies make me happy. It’s hard to accept the idea that such backward degenerate nation takes from us so many sacrifices.  But this nation must be thrown away out of the history of the world like garbage, once and for all.

God bless you as He kept you in Poland, in Holland and in France.

Loving you to pieces your mother and grandmother.

==============

Now you see who and why attacked us and invaded our Homeland! Judge for yourself what those “civilized Europeans” thought of us. Read what they wanted to do to us.! Do you think that today’s Europeans and Americans think about us differently? Do you think they would treat us humanly, if they are given a chance to attack us again? You would think wrong. Remember, what they have been doing in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Syria…

====

Newly released UN “Nazi Holocaust archives” show US & UK colluded with Third Reich to destroy Soviet Union

 

Veritas: ” It was an important piece of news that the UN had finally opened up the archives – despite US/UK trying to stop the info getting out. It also backs up everything that the site has always said.

I think the release of this information by the UN needs to be highlighted on the site. It is so important that everyone is aware – of course the MSM isn’t covering this……the Duran has highlighted it:

:…the Western governments, or at least powerful sections, were loath to hamper the Nazi war effort against the Soviet Union. Notwithstanding that the Soviet Union was a nominal «ally» of the West for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

This perspective harks to a radically different conception of the Second World War in contrast to that narrated in official Western versions. In this alternative historical account, the rise of the Nazi Third Reich was deliberately fomented by American and British rulers as a bulwark in Europe against the spread of communism. Adolf Hitler’s rabid anti-Semitism was matched only by his detest of Marxism and the Slavic people of the Soviet Union. In the Nazi ideology, they were all «Untermenschen» (subhumans) to be exterminated in a «Final Solution».

 So, when Nazi Germany was attacking the Soviet Union and carrying out its Final Solution from June 1941 until late 1944, little wonder then that the US and Britain showed a curious reluctance to commit their military forces fully to open up a Western Front. The Western allies were evidently content to see the Nazi war machine doing what it was originally intended to do: to destroy the primary enemy to Western capitalism as represented by the Soviet Union.”

===

Scott Humor

Director of Research and Development

author of The enemy of the State

Follow me on twitter


Putin’s Victory Day Speech: No Force Will Ever Enslave Russian People

Local Editor

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a speech at the Victory Day Parade in Moscow.

Putin's Victory Day Speech: No Force Will Ever Enslave Russian People


There was no, there is no and there will be no force that could ever enslave the Russians, the country’s President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday at the Victory Day Parade in Moscow.

“There was no, there is no and there will be no force that could ever enslave our people. They fought to the bitter end, defending their homeland, and did what seemed impossible, they turned the bloody wheel of the Second World War back, drove the enemy from our land where it dared to come, crushed Nazism, put an end to its atrocities,” Putin said.

“And we will never forget that it was our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers who brought the freedom to Europe and the long-awaited peace on the planet,” he added.

Moreover, according to Putin, the international community should join efforts to fight common threats and Russia is open to this kind of cooperation.

“The consolidation of the efforts of all international community is necessary for the effective fight against terrorism, extremism, neo-Nazism, and other threats. We are open to this kind of cooperation,” the Russian president said.

Putin further added that the Russian Armed Forces are ready to counter any potential attacks, as the past wars taught Russia to be vigilant.

“We will always guard Russia as you, the soldiers of the Victory, did it. And [we will] strengthen the traditions of patriotism, loyally serving the homeland. The lessons of the past war force us to be vigilant and the Russian Armed Forces are ready to repel any potential attack,” Putin said.

Putin stressed that the need to strengthen the defenses was dictated by the life itself.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

09-05-2017 | 11:37

%d bloggers like this: