Israel to Police European Coastlines – Protecting the Continent from Refugees?

November 12, 2018

by Peter Koenig for The Saker BlogIsrael to Police European Coastlines – Protecting the Continent from Refugees?

This sounds like a bad joke. It ain’t. Its real. One fascist government helps another fascist government. Yes, I have written about fascism invading the west before – warning that the European Union (non-union) is being gradually, but ever faster turned into a fascist dictatorship under the guise of democratic protection of ‘Democracy’; and this by her unelected European Commission (EC) leaders (sic). EU citizens are being brainwashed with neoliberal lie-propaganda into believing that they are living in the heart of democracy – that they are free and protected by police and military, 24×7.

Indeed, such protection can be seen at almost every street corner in France’s major cities; France, the country that had the audacity to make the permanent state of emergency part of her Constitution. And others are dutifully following Macron’s example. No wonder, EU member country governments have all been ‘put in place’ by fake elections, with the help of Cambridge Analytica and other social media tricks, by now well-known around the globe – and even the myriad MSM (mainstream media). It would be a strange coincidence, if practically all of the heads of EU states are following either neoliberal or Nazi doctrines. In any case, the difference are a few details. Most obvious neonazis are depicted with the denigrating term of populists, disregarding the fact that a populist is someone who is liked by the people. Wouldn’t that be democracy?

The PM of Hungary, Victor Orbàn, and Poland’s far-right Andrzej Duda, fall into this category and soon Italy’s government, basically led by the far right, deputy PM, Matteo Salvini, who calls the shots in Italy, to the detriment of the Five-Star lead party, will follow suit. Everybody who refuses to bend to Brussels’ rules is a ‘populist’. It’s that simple. And it’s no coincidence.

Back to the head-story: An Israeli private military contractor, Elbit Systems Ltd, has been awarded a contract to Monitor European Coasts, as reported by the Palestine Chronicle. Israel’s private defense contractor has “won” a 68 million dollars two-year contract, renewable by another two years, to survey most of European coastlines and to report to Brussels and the countries’ authorities. Universal surveillance and fascism are on the march – and running ever faster. This ‘bidding process’ was not an open competition. This was ‘one fascist hand washing the hand of another fascist. Yes, that’s as bad as we have become in Europe. And the populace has no clue, because they are comfortably seeing their freedom, their civil rights, their human rights, being eroded, ‘floated’ away, under the pretext of national security – and of course their own, the people’s security. – That’s what a few ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks can achieve – people scream for help, for police protection. The more the better. And who is better suited than a fascist state to respond to that call of desperation – to fulfill that fake role of protector?

Israel is known having armed the fascist Ukraine government. Israel’s purpose of policing the European coastlines is to prevent Palestine Gaza prisoners from escaping their horrible, horrible fate. Two million Palestinians need to be forcefully kept locked into this open-air concentration camp, being tortured, bombed, starved and finally killed. That’s what Zionist-Israel is all about. Mind you, that is no at all an anti-Semitic statement. There are millions of Israelis who disagree with this fascist policy. But they are being shut-up, they have no right to speak out – plus they are, like Europeans, constantly drip-by-steady-drip indoctrinated by lies, falsehoods and deceptions – that Palestinians are a danger for the survival of Israel.

This is simply NOT TRUE. It is a flagrant lie – a lie sustained by the United States, whose interest is permanent conflict in the Middle East to control the Middle Easts rich resources – and Israel is an important ally – more than an ally. Thanks to Israel’s and AIPAC’s (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the strongest Washington lobby) endless flow of money to Washington’s politicians – Israel, as the paymaster of political campaigns of both parties of the US-One-Party system – calls the shots. By Israel, is meant Zionist-led Israel, not the common people who want nothing more than peace and a friendly and harmonious relationship with Palestine; Israelis who are aware that they are actually camping on Palestine land – Israelis, who have not been blinded by those who have since 70 years purposefully distorted history, altered schoolbooks and pretend that this Holy Land is theirs, rather than a piece of land of mutual ownership, to be shared equally and with equal rights.

These Israelis, the vast majority, are not targeted with this article, or with the accusation of being fascists. It’s their dictator leadership, those who are in lock-step with the neofascist Trump Administration – and, well, those who call the shots in Washington, in all the so-called thinktanks (sic) that make US foreign policy. Neoliberal, cum neonazi Israel wants to eradicate Palestine, Iran, Syria, but they are in bed with the murderous Saudis – with the killers of tens of thousands of Yemeni children, with the brutal murderers of the entire Yemeni population through famine, destruction of water supply and sanitation systems, of lack-of-hygiene induced cholera and a myriad of other diseases.

Israel’s private defense contractor announced having won a two-year contract, renewable for another two years, with the EU Maritime Safety Agency. They will patrol the Mediterranean Sea and Europe’s Coast lines with drones and inform Europe’s authorities of ‘irregularities’, of refugee ships, of last-hope vessels carrying desperate people, escaping from western created misery in their lands. And Palestinian refugees are on the rise. They can no longer stand their abject fate under Israeli’s inescapable rules and cruel dictate. They seek refuge in Europe, paradoxically, they go to their hangman seeking shelter. But where else to go?

So, these unmanned Israeli military aircraft will automatically signal the defense forces of Israel to intercept any attempt of escaping Palestinians – to bring them back to their open torture chamber – which Gaza has become. – Gaza’s terror conditions have become the utter “normality” from the western populace, especially Europeans. They will just watch like Palestinians will be slaughtered into fear of escaping from their ‘life’ prison, called Gaza.

That’s what the west has become, or as my friend, Andre Vltchek, would say, they have colonized, enslaved and raped Asia, Africa and Latin America for at least a thousand years – why would you expect them to change? They have gotten away with murder for so long – why would they change? Today, they continue with (slightly) different methods – its financial slavehood. It’s the epitome of shameless criminal neo-colonialism. Israel’s two to four- year contract of their defense contractor serves as a mere proxy for the EU’s terror, lack of compassion and inhumanity. Mind you, the United States is just the heritage of Europeans migrated across the Atlantic.

The company, Elbit Systems Ltd, will provide European Union countries with maritime unmanned aircraft patrol services and in theory with nothing more -which is, of course, a flagrant lie. They will ex-contractually confiscate refugee boats, as miserable as they may be, contributing to more refugee deaths. In September 2018, UNHCR, Mediterranean refugee transfers have been deadlier than ever this year, having reached more than 1,600 so far.

“Rocket News” reports, “in October, Israeli companies signed purchase agreements with the United Nations for the provision of water and security service to UN forces in Africa. Israel also won a $777 million contract for the supply of India’s missile defenses, as well as being revealed as a lead exporter of tools for spying on civilians being used by dictatorships or authoritarian governments around the world.”

Rocket News continues, “Such deals and multi-million-dollar contracts over a variety of regions are seen as not only a benefit to the Israeli economy but also [as proof for] the reliability of its [Israel’s] services and the subsequent potential increase of its international credibility.”

Whatever Zionist-Israel does, the Chosen People, is for the good of Mother Earth. How long will it take until the populace inhabiting Mother Earth wakes up, screaming for fear and agony, bringing an end to this farce, this criminal Anglo-Zionist farcical dictatorship?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Advertisements

NATO membership for Ukraine & Georgia would bring out the bear in Russia

Robert Bridge
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow News, he is author of the book, ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ released in 2013.
NATO membership for Ukraine & Georgia would bring out the bear in Russia
Western leaders argue that the growth of NATO along Russia’s border together with the militarization of Eastern Europe is necessary for preserving peace with Moscow. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There has been an unmistakable trend in the realm of geopolitics since the start of the new millennium – of which Ukraine and Georgia may represent the next phase – and it bodes absolutely disastrous for the future of mankind. Indeed, it may very well lead to its ultimate destruction. I am talking about NATO’s incessant encroachment upon Russia’s borders amid a crumbling arms treaty architecture.

Despite past promises that such a scenario would never happen, and regardless of which US leader was holding power in Washington, NATO’s relentless eastward advance – under the guise of one excuse or another – has been ongoing for many years.

A history of deception

Despite the relatively upbeat, positive mood that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, West-Russia relations were already strained by 1999 as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were newly absorbed into the Western military bloc. This was considered outrageous by many observers at the time since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved almost a decade earlier.

However, the wheels really began to fall off the apple cart called ‘global stability’ when then-US president George W. Bush announced in late 2001 that he would withdraw the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). Predicated on the suicidal rationale of “mutually assured destruction,” the arms control treaty managed to keep the peace for 30 long years between the nuclear powers. Putin called the decision “a mistake.

The purpose of mentioning that abrogated treaty is that it has fueled Russia’s anxiety with regard to NATO’s ulterior motives ever since. With ABM out of the way, the United States was able to move forward with a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Despite some fits and starts by the Bush administration, and unfulfilled assurances by the Obama administration that the US would cooperate with Moscow on the system, such a partnership never transpired.

In May 2016, NATO announced that the missile defense base in Romania was fully operational.

Now, had Moscow sat back and done nothing, hoping that NATO would eventually accede to its request for cooperation, then the anti-missile defense system smack on Russia’s border would have been a real game-changer. But as we know, Russia did not sit back and do nothing. In fact, it did something rather incredible. Vladimir Putin revealed in March that Russia had developed – with mind-boggling swiftness – a number of advanced weapons systems, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile with nearly unlimited range. That weapon alone essentially makes NATO efforts to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent obsolete.

Unfortunately, the US missile-defense system smoking in Russia’s geopolitical backyard is not Moscow’s only concern. Behind an advance guard comprised of Western media propaganda and think-tank fallacies, organizations responsible for disseminating unfounded accusations of ‘Russian aggression,’ NATO forces have been able to make serious inroads inside the territories of member states, primarily those that are situated close to or on the Russian border.

Poland, for example, despite already having a rotational US troop presence in its country, is now seeking a permanent US military footprint, even willing to pay $2 billion for the pleasure. In September, prior to a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Donald Trump said he would consider the proposal “very seriously.”

READ MORE: Trump mulls idea of permanent US military base in Poland, says Warsaw ‘likes it very much’

Meanwhile, coming shortly after a large-scale US-led military exercise called Saber Strike 18 on the territory of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, NATO is now in the middle of Trident Juncture 18 drills (October 25-November 7), involving some 45,000 troops from 31 countries. Designed to prepare for an act of aggression from a “foreign belligerent,” Western scare tactics of late make the identity of the fictional bogeyman rather obvious.

Taking aim at Ukraine and Georgia

For anyone who believes that US-led NATO would be content with 29 members in its rapidly growing military clique has not been following the arc of political events.

Undoubtedly, one of the worst recent flash-points in NATO-Russia relations came in February 2014, when a series of violent protests, prompted by Kiev opting out of an association agreement with the European Union, led to the ouster Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the overthrow of the government. A number of American – not Russian – politicians and diplomats, including the late John McCain and Victoria Nuland, appeared on the streets of Kiev at the height of the unrest, not just stoking the glowing embers of opposition, but literally helping to determine who would lead the country. However, it is Russia that is blamed to this day in the Western media for its “invasion of Ukraine.”

Much of that fabrication was based on a democratic referendum in Crimea, held at the height of hostilities when extreme-right forces were threatening the entire country, in which some 97 percent voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. One year after that historic vote, Western media were forced to admit that positive sentiments towards Russia had not changed.

Yet even today, many Westerners still believe that Russia seized Crimea through military force thanks to comments like this example from a British tabloid: “In 2014, Russian forces annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea, rapidly incorporating it into the Russian Federation.” Funny, not a single mention of a referendum among those 17 misguided words.

READ MORE: Crimea is Russian, the matter is finished

Another event that has allowed the Western world to portray Russia as the world’s foremost beast of burden is the five-day conflict between Russia and Georgia. Once again, here is how the Western media regularly explains that event: “Russia launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion in 2008, accusing Georgia of aggression against Russian separatists in the South Ossetia region.” It’s pretty clear who sounds like the aggressor here since the above sentence puts the cart before the horse. In fact, it really was Georgia that was responsible for attacking and killing Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia, thereby triggering a Russian response.

It is largely on the basis of these two events, of which the Western public has an extremely poor understanding due to their agenda-based media, that an argument is being made with increasing frequency for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.

Needless to say, such a scenario would set West-Russia relations back to the Stone Age.

And that may be more literally the case than one would first realize, since we are now dealing with the possibility of nuclear weapons loose in the region. This comes after Donald Trump announced his intention to leave the decades-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

READ MORE: US quitting landmark INF treaty is ‘fact’, Moscow prepares response to ‘questions’ – Lavrov

Analysts say such a move would bring the world closer to the outbreak of nuclear war.

Andrei Kelin, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s European Cooperation Department, said the risk of Georgia joining NATO, at a time when the US is talking about withdrawing from yet another arms treaty, would force Russia to respond with a “defense belt near Sochi.”

We will have to spend colossal resources on preventing likely actions by a hypothetical enemy, this is inevitable,” Kelin told an audience at the Valdai discussion group, which meets annually in Russia. Ukraine’s accession to the alliance would also present equally serious considerations, and would force Russia “to shift the emphasis of our defense structures towards the south.”

In other words, unless some intelligent people start speaking up in the West, describing the reality of the situation in that Russia poses no threat to Western interests, then the likelihood of some future catastrophe will increase by a degree of magnitude.

While Kelin described Ukrainian and Georgian accession to NATO as “very unlikely” for the time being, we should keep in mind that most people also thought it “very unlikely” just five years ago that US-Russia relations would hit rock bottom in a matter of just months.

If one thing is certain these days, it would surely have to be the level of uncertainty in the world of geopolitics. That should be of tremendous concern to all of us.

@Robert_Bridge

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

BELARUS: WE’RE WITH RUSSIA AND WILL RESPOND MILITARILY IF POLAND HOSTS U.S BASE

Related image

Source

Belorussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has advised the Polish foreign minister not to create “unnecessary” military bases, otherwise Russia and Belarus will respond.

The Belarussian president stressed that his country is not looking for any military conflict and carries out an exclusively peaceful foreign policy.

“I told the [Polish] foreign minister — he spoke here in Minsk: we are not going to fight with you. Therefore, there is no need to create unnecessary bases. Otherwise, we along with the Russians will have to respond. It means that we will have to deploy something in order to counteract you, ” Lukashenko said, as quoted by the Belta news agency.

On October 26, Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz said that Poland would strengthen military cooperation with the United States, emphasizing that Warsaw sought the permanent presence of US military personnel in the country.

Earlier, US President Donald Trump announced after a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda that his administration is considering establishing a permanent military base on Polish territory and that Warsaw is willing to pay “billions of dollars” for its installation.

In Poland, a US tank brigade with about 3,500 men is currently being set up on a rotating basis. In the territory of the country was also positioned a multinational battalion of NATO with a thousand or more soldiers.

While an attack on US forces in Poland establishes a huge liability in terms of loss potential and any expected US response would be justified on those grounds, nevertheless the present Polish government has found it wise to establish the country as a shock absorber and impact zone for any Russian response.

Russian diplomat Aleksandr Grushko said on the sidelines of the Security Conference of Munich days ago that Russia and Belarus have the technical-military potential to respond appropriately to the threats linked to the possible deployment of a permanent US base in Poland.

“Russia and Belarus have a whole spectrum of technical-military measures that allow them to do so effectively and without much cost,” Gruskko said, responding to a question about setting up the base. According to him, the two countries have enough potential “in any scenario to securely secure the interests of defensive capability and security,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexandr Grushko.

According to the diplomat, the most concrete questions should be addressed to the military. He stressed once again that the two countries have a whole range of technical-military possibilities to react effectively and without many costs.

“It will be a convincing demonstration that countries today call foreign troops into their territory not only do not enhance their security but expose themselves to a heightened danger,” Grushko said.

Taken together, it would appear that the US has pushed Poland again to use its limited funds and loan arrangements with the IMF to further purchase US arms, in a futile gambit or in a bizarre framework in which Poland might be an effective instrument against Russian aggression.

 

Repeating Churchill’s Bungles: Will US Drive Turkey into Joining the Shanghai Pact?

Repeating Churchill’s Bungles: Will US Drive Turkey into Joining the Shanghai Pact?

Repeating Churchill’s Bungles: Will US Drive Turkey into Joining the Shanghai Pact?

In 1917, the professional head of the British Army, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson in 1917 explained why the Allies were losing World War I because they kept pouring out lives, weapons and resources on capturing tiny unimportant locations on the Western Front while Imperial Germany conquered Eastern and Southern Europe, invading and occupying one major country after another:

“We take Bullecourt, they take Rumania; We take Messines, they take Russia; We don’t take Passchendaele, they take Italy,” Wilson told Winston Churchill.

Today, Washington is moving heaven and earth to integrate such major world powers as Macedonia, Montenegro and Georgia into NATO to join those vital pillars of world security Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. And at the same time, it is obsessed with imposing ruinous sanctions on Turkey.

Yet Turkey has been a major member of NATO for 63 years. It continues to play a crucial role in US strategic deployments across the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Its cooperation is absolutely essential to ensure the supply and – if war were ever to break out Russia – the very survival of all US warships operating in the Black Sea.

Feckless, passive and ignorant President Barack Obama allowed US relations with Turkey to deteriorate to their worst ever state.

It is no secret that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is convinced that the US military were involved in the serious coup attempt that nearly cost him his life two years ago. Those suspicions are certainly widely believed among top Turkish policymakers.

Faced with such unprecedented suspicions and strains in the US –Turkish alliance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the US Congress should be working overtime to build relations, cooperation and long-term trust with Turkey.

They are doing no such thing. With stunning insouciance and crass ignorance, both parties in Congress seek out every opportunity to insult Turkey, give aid and comfort to forces traditionally hostile to the country and now are happily supporting devastating new tariffs.

As internationally respected commentator M. K. Bhadrakumar warned on this platform, “The sense of indignation among Turks should not be underestimated, which makes this an exceptional rupture.”

It is not as if Washington could sanely assess that Turkey was internationally isolated. On the contrary, Ankara enjoys excellent relations with Russia, China, India and Iran. US and NATO policies once again are backfiring and isolating their perpetrators, not the countries they target.

It is eerily fitting that neoconservatives and neoliberals worship the deified Winston Churchill so much. For it was Churchill’s personal bungling that that brought the Turkish Ottoman Empire needlessly into World War I on the side of Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

In August 1914, Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, the political head of the British Navy, ordered the seizure of the Sultan Osman I and the Reshadieh, two state-of-the-art new Dreadnought battleships being built for Turkey in British shipyards (The Turks had already paid four billion pounds sterling for them). Britain did not even need the two battleships. It had a wide margin of maritime superiority over the German High Seas Fleet. But the move was the political and psychological equivalent of telling Turkey today that the United States is not going to sell Ankara the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters it had promised.

Turkey had been a loyal and major British ally at least since the Ochakoff Incident of 1791.But after Churchill’s bungle popular outrage in Turkey was overwhelming. It decisively swung the delicate balance in Constantinople that led the ruling, secular Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) into Berlin’s orbit.

Turkey went to war, cutting off the vital Anglo-French maritime supply route through the Dardanelles Strait into the Black Sea and cutting off Imperial Russia. Toi open that waterway, Churchill pushed the catastrophic and utterly bungled Gallipoli campaign in 1915. It cost the British, Irish, Australians and New Zealanders who fought there more than 140,000 casualties including 44,000 dead. The Turks lost 86,000 dead.

Churchill was sacked from the British government for his bungling. He then devoted the heart of his enormous six-volume postwar memoir “The World Crisis” to trying to pass the blame for his failures off on everybody else.

Today, Washington’s reckless and abusive policies towards Turkey are repeating the catastrophic bungles that Churchill inflicted more than a century ago.

An increasing number of Turks no longer trust NATO: Instead, they fear it. The only other obvious international security body for Turkey to seek protection with is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which in June pulled off the extraordinary coup of expanding to include India and Pakistan at the same time.

As Arkady Savitsky has noted in this journal, Turkey is already a dialogue partner with the SCO. It is also considering a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). President Erdogan has also made clear he would like Turkey to join the BRICS bloc which, like the SCO includes Russia, China and India.

If President Erdogan decides to leave NATO to join the SCO, and drops Brussels to replace it with Shanghai, even Washington and London will have to sit up and take notice. Yet the logic of the policies and rhetoric being spewed out of the Western capitals can only drive Turkey to that outcome, seeking its own security and survival.

Foreign Policy Matters interviews The Saker

August 23, 2018

This is part three of a four part interview I recently made with the Poland based website Foreign Policy Matters (https://foreignpolicymatters.com/).  Enjoy!

The Saker

Part II

Part I

The 1943 Volyn Massacre and Ukrainian Nazis Today

The 1943 Volyn Massacre and Ukrainian Nazis Today

July 12, 2018

By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-the-1943-volyn-massacre-and-ukrainian-
nazis-today/

source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20180711/1020593387.html

Today [at the time of writing – ed] is a gloomy anniversary – the 75th anniversary of the Volyn massacre. Its start is counted from July 11th, 1943 rather arbitrarily. Excesses with the mass extermination of Poles happened in February 1943, and even in 1942…

It is simply that on July 10th Zygmunt Jan Rumel – the envoy of the Polish government in Volyn, who tried to hold negotiations with Banderists over the peaceful settlement of the conflict – was killed, and on the next day (July 11th) UPA attacked over 150 Polish villages at the same time.

It is precisely from this day onwards that hope for some form of compromise settlement in Banderist-Polish contradictions was lost and events definitively took the form of the mass genocide of Poles.

In recent years the history of the Volyn massacre is described in all details. The refusal of Kiev to admit the guilt of Banderists in the genocide of Poles in Western Ukraine became the reason for a sharp political conflict between modern Ukraine and Poland, which is far from being exhausted and still hasn’t reached its peak. I want to especially highlight that it is thanks to the inadequate policy of the current Ukrainian authorities that the old half-forgotten Banderist-Polish conflict became an actual Ukrainian-Polish one. I.e., the modern Ukrainian State and its people, without there being any need to do so, assumed responsibility for the actions of monsters 75-years ago.

After all, Kiev was only required to condemn absolutely obvious criminals who committed crimes against humanity, to distance themselves from them and thus close the question. But the authorities decided that the formal Ukrainian-ness of murderers can turn criminals into heroes.

This is now already common Ukrainian guilt and common Ukrainian shame, and whitewashing this will not be simple at all. Actually, the official government of the country, with the full non-resistance and even partial support of the people, at the high international level declared that from its point of view the murder of unarmed people – mainly women and children – is justified if it is done in the interests of Ukrainian statehood.

Now the Ukrainian authorities are sincerely surprised by the Polish reaction. After all, they quite recently said (and did) the same thing concerning Russians and received the hot approval of the collective West, and Poland in particular. Naive Ukrainian leaders decided that “if there is no Nazism in Ukraine” when it is aimed against Russians, then it “won’t exist” concerning the Poles too. Now they accuse the West and Poland of double standards.

After all, the standards are, of course, double, but nobody especially tried to hide this. There was a need to take this into account when developing domestic and foreign policy. Pathological russophobia is an indulgence in the opinion of the West only if crimes are committed against Russians. But it doesn’t mean at all that the West is ready to tolerate the same thing in relation to itself.

Once, even before the collapse of the USSR, the president of a Croatia that had just declared its independence Franjo Tuđman came to Kiev on a visit. Now that he has long been dead, and Croatia tries to obtain a “human face”and turn into a “normal democracy”, even the West tries not to remember his regime as being too dirty to shake hands with. But back then the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship and the ethnic cleansing of Serbians were still ahead, and Tuđman was considered to be a democrat dissident.

In the schedule of Tuđman’s visit to Kiev there was a speech in front of university students. In his speech he called Croatia “the Ukraine of the Balkans”. The parallel was clear enough. Croatians don’t like their Serbian “elder brother”in the same way that Ukrainians don’t like their Russian one. It is necessary to say that as of that moment Tuđman was deeply mistaken concerning Russian-Ukrainian relations. 25 years of extreme propaganda were needed in order to bring the matter to the Russian-Ukrainian civil war in Ukraine.

But even now, if not to take into account the several tens of thousands of ideological descendants of Banderists, in the broad masses of the population there aren’t any of those who have become gripped by the pathological hatred that forced Croatians to invent the srbosjek in the years of World War II, and at the beginning of the 90’s to stage the most large-scale ethnic cleansing on the European continent in the last 70 years. Indifference and apathy are quite characteristic for the citizens of Ukraine, thanks to which the pathetic 1% of the total number of the population can stage maidans, launch war in Donbass, and in the end – exterminate their own State.

And here we arrive at the second mistake of Tuđman. He overestimated the common sense of Ukrainian nationalists, who already back then were actively moving into power in Kiev. Let’s look at the same Croatia. Croatians don’t like not only Serbians. If the Americans didn’t forbid them, they would commit genocide against Bosnians too. They also can’t forgive the Hungarians for the fact that in 1102 Coloman the Learned liquidated the independent kingdom of Croatia. After this only Hitler in 1941 allowed the creation of an independent Croatia.

So in general, in the same way as Ukrainians, Croatians, should they have the desire, could turn their nationalism against their neighbors. But they preferred to concentrate on Serbians, because it is impossible to create a State if all your neighbors are enemies, since they will suffocate it in its cradle via collective efforts.

During this same speech at the Kiev university, Tuđman, answering a question about his attitude towards Tito – someone who he was an irreconcilable political opponent of, said: “Tito, of course, was a communist, but he was Croatian”. This is another noteworthy point. Croatian nationalists, even such radical ones as Tuđman, were able to restrain their ardor not only in foreign policy, but also in the domestic political arena. Being in conflict with the large Serbian community that they finally were able to force out beyond the borders of Croatia, they tried to avoid other serious conflicts, including for ideological reasons.

Only thanks to this did they manage to create a State in rather difficult conditions. Even in the West there was no consensus concerning the expediency of the disintegration of Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 90’s. It is Germany that acted as the locomotive of the process, but there was no guarantee that it would manage to convince its partners in the EU and that the Americans, who Milosevic quite suited at first, would agree to it [disintegration of Yugoslavia – ed]. I.e., the external situation didn’t favor the builders of an independent Croatia. Inside the country, as was already said, there was a strong Serbian community that compactly lived on its historical lands, and which sought to maintain State unity with Serbia. If in these conditions the Croatians started laying down historical claims to all its neighbors, and inside the country a witch-hunt on ideological grounds would be arranged, then independent Croatia would disappear without having ever appeared.

This is exactly what Ukrainians did. Having received independence on a plate and having a quite loyal population, nationalists immediately started to create lines of division in society. Either a pathetic small group of Galician-speaking enthusiasts tries to “Ukrainise” (or to be more exact – Galicianise) all of Ukraine, 83% of which speak Russian, or a small group of “fascistising” marginals try to impose Bandera and Shukhevych being heroes on the grandchildren of the winners [Red Army – ed], and to almost present collaborators from OUN and UPA as the only winners in World War II, during which they allegedly fought against both Germany and the USSR.

It is clear that all of this didn’t make them more popular inside the country. That’s why they were able to come to power only via a coup and remain in power only via open violence: arbitrary arrests and murders. Naturally, they see their main enemy as Russia, just because a Russophobic regime that also openly calls the West for war against Russia can’t please Moscow.

It would be logical to expect that Kiev will try not to irritate other neighbors (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Belarus). After all, the strongest internal conflict multiplied by disgusting relations with Russia, which definitively declared itself as a superpower, already practically doesn’t give the Ukrainian state any chances of succeeding. But the Ukrainian leadership went in another direction. It managed to attack literally all ethnic minorities, to touch the sore points of literally all their neighbors, and to make the idea of partitioning Ukraine extremely popular in the Eastern European countries that border it.

Moreover, by trying to acquit Banderists for the Volyn massacre, Kiev put forward the concept of a local Ukrainian-Polish war in Volyn. The Ukrainian point of view is that in the region there were clashes between UPA and Armia Krajowa, a by-product of which were attacks on Polish and Ukrainian settlements as potential places of basing enemy forces.

But this in its root contradicts the legend of the simultaneous fight of Banderists against Hitler and Stalin. Armia Krajowa was subordinated to the Polish government in exile in London and was equally negative about both Berlin and Moscow. Here, it would seem, is a natural ally in the “fight” on two fronts, which was allegedly carried out by Banderists. But instead, UPA, relying on the support of the Nazis who they allegedly are at war with, massacred with rapture the Poles who are actually at war with the Germans.

This isn’t just the full collapse of the legend about UPA being an anti-Hitler force. The fact is that by entering into a senseless and doomed in advance discussion with the Poles, Ukrainians stimulate the national memory of the same Poland. Moreover, they force Warsaw, defending its position in the international arena, to actively release into the public domain documents and materials about the true nazi and collaborationist essence of OUN and UPA.

I will emphasise that Poland, which for a long time pretended that it doesn’t see the development of Nazism in Ukraine, is now forced to support the Russian position that Warsaw earlier tried to ignore and even disavow. The long-term propaganda activities of Poland based on a mass of real documents are much more dangerous for Kiev than Hungary’s demonstrative blockade of events in NATO and the EU with the participation of Ukrainians, as well as the feeble efforts of Romania to return the territories that it lost in 1940.

Hungary will withdraw its objections when Kiev becomes reasonable and stops threatening the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia. I.e., the key to an instant solution of this conflict is in the hands of Kiev, and as soon as Ukraine satisfies the fair demands of Budapest the conflict will be settled without any political consequences. Romania alone doesn’t constitute a danger and can’t dream about lands for at least another 100 years. But Poland’s forced exposure of the true essence of Ukrainian nationalism will have long-term consequences that are harmful for Ukraine.

Once launched, the propaganda machine can’t be immediately stopped. Poland has positioned itself as the “lawyer of Ukraine” in the EU and NATO for too long. In the West there is the opinion that Warsaw’s politicians have a better grasp of the Ukrainian perspective than their colleagues from other European countries. If Russia isn’t trusted very often and is suspected of forging aggressive plans, then Poland is excluded from suspicions. If Poland affirms that in Ukraine the ideological followers of the collaborators who served Hitler are today in power, then it means that this is indeed the reality. And suddenly in recent months articles written by journalists who “started to see clearly” and discovered Nazism in Ukraine started appearing in the western press one after the other.

I think that the information activities of Poland very much assisted in such “enlightenment”. Its indirect result is that the West is obliged to recognise with shame that Russia, which already for the 5th year has pointed out the nazi essence of the Kiev regime, appeared to be right. And now the Poles — the main western specialists on Ukraine – also confirmed it. And further there is a logical question: so maybe Russia was right about everything else too?

After this Kiev even dares to be surprised that Merkel so desperately fights for “Nord Stream-2” and the Bulgarians dream of returning to the construction of South Stream. After all, if in Kiev it is indeed nazis who are in power, and Russia is right about everything, then it is for sure that Europe can’t cope without the [gas – ed] “streams”. After all, Europe isn’t Ukraine, and it doesn’t plan to buy “reverse” Russian gas from China extremely expensively.

In general, by glorifying Nazis under the applause of the West to spite Russia, Ukrainian politicians, due to their narrow-mindedness, decided that if the US and NATO are against Russia and Hitler was against Russia, so public solidarisation with Nazi lackeys from OUN and UPA will be met in the West with approval. Having rushed to the gaping heights ahead of the locomotive, Kiev, as is usually the case for it, deceived itself.

Along the way, Ukrainian statehood once again practically lost any chance of being successful. A regime that is officially recognised as being Nazi – and everything is heading towards this [vis-a-vis the junta in Kiev – ed] – isn’t needed by anybody neither in Europe nor in the world. Even by those who share the views of Adolf. Having split and submerged their own country in civil war, nationalists now hammer the last nail into the lid of its coffin, ensuring international isolation for Ukraine.

Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu’s interview with Italy’s Il Giornale full version

The Saker

July 11, 2018

Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu’s interview with Italy’s Il Giornale full version

Translation by Scott Humor from Russian version found here

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201807111100-cg1g.htm

Original interview

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/mondo/gelo-washington-colpa-delle-lites-americane-1551319.html

 

Q.: Mr. Minister, tensions between Russia and the United States are growing and raising concerns: are we on the threshold of a new Cold War?

Shoigu: We often hear from the US that the crisis in bilateral relations has been provoked by Russia’s alleged aggressive actions on the international arena. However, we are firmly convinced that tensions in our relations have been artificially fueled all this time by those American elites, who believe that the world is divided into the “American” part and the “wrong” part.

it was the United States that in recent years had unilaterally broke key agreements, which formed the backbone of the global security. Despite the promises that were given to the Soviet leadership during Germany’s reunification, Washington initiated eastward NATO expansion towards our borders.

For over 25 years they tried to fool us claiming that there have been no promises, until recently the National Security Agency declassified archives with the documents of that period, in which it has been set out literally and in personalities.

Because of NATO expansion to the East and accession to NATO countries of Eastern Europe: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania, an agreement signed in 1990 between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO called the Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, providing for the limitation of armaments in areas of contact between two blocks, de facto lost its meaning for Russia.

In 2002, under a pretext of a fictitious “danger” of a missile attack by Iran or North Korea, Washington unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and began deployment its radars and anti-missiles in the vicinity of our borders.

I, as president of the Russian Geographical Society, have for a long time wanted to present the US colleagues with a globe so that they would look at it and explain to us, why the ‘US adversaries’ designated by them are located in the Middle East and East Asia, while all their military bases and troops are scooched along Russia’s borders? Do they expect us to defend them?

The US party is currently preparing its withdrawal from the INF treaty. The reason for such step is alleged violations of the treaty by Russia.

 

Q: What kind of violations?

Shoigu: All we hear are some mumbles and baseless accusations directed at us. But there are no facts, only statements.

We have repeatedly and publicly made it clear in all major international fora that it is the United States that is directly violating the INF Treaty, having installed, during the deployment of a missile shield in Europe, its MK-41 vertical launching systems, which might be used to launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles. The destructive radius of these missiles covers almost all the European part of Russia’s territory.

In 2007 at the Munich Security Conference Russian President Vladimir Putin called on the leadership of the United States and other Western countries to respect Russia’s national interests and to build open and equal relationships. Unfortunately, very few in the West wanted to hear this call.

 

Q: In your opinion why is this happening?

Shoigu: Today recovering Russia is being viewed not as an ally but as a threat to the US dominance. We are being accused of some aggressive plans towards the West, which, in turn, continues to deploy new forces on our borders.

Among multiple examples of such unfriendly steps there is a decision made in June by NATO to establish two new commands, responsible for the protection of maritime communication and the operative deployment of the US troops to Europe. It’s also an increase of the alliance’s contingent troops in the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland from 2,000 to 15,000 troops with the possibility of rapid build-up of the group to 60,000 soldiers with armored vehicles. Starting with 2020, NATO intends to maintain 30 battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 warships to be in constant readiness for use at the borders of Russia in 30 days.

All of these takes place directly at Russia’s Western borders. At the same time, the Americans are constantly violating international law, using military force in various regions of the world under the pretext of protecting their own interests.

This happened in April of this year in Syria, when on the territory of the sovereign and independent state, (the US) with the support of Britain and France carried out a massive missile attack. What took place was a gross violation of international law by three permanent members of the UN Security Council under fictitious pretext. And this is not an only example, but a trend.

 

Q: A trend?

Shoigu: Yes, we are talking about the neocolonial strategy, which has already been tested by the United States in Iraq and Libya and which consists in supporting any, even the most barbaric ideologies, in order to weaken legitimate governments. After that the United States stages attacks with the use of weapons of mass destruction or organizing humanitarian disasters and, at the final stages, uses military force to create “manageable chaos,” which enables the transnational corporations freely extract the existing assets and to funnel them into the US economy.

Russia, which advocates the equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with all the countries within the concept of the multipolar world, will always be an obstacle for such “strategies to be implemented.

 

Q.: Are there any red lines that cannot be crossed?

Shoigu: In this sense, our military doctrine is very clear, and its essence in prevention of any conflicts. Our official approaches to the use of military force are quite clear and fully disclosed.

Despite of my post, I am convinced that any issues can and should be settled without the use of military force.

I have repeatedly extended invitations to the Pentagon’s head to discuss the existing problems of the global and regional security, including the fight against terrorism. But the Americans are not ready for such dialogue, although, I am certain, that it’s in the best interest not only people in Russia and in the USA, but also in the rest of the world.

Right now, there is only one communication channel between our general staffs now, which is used in negotiations, including at the level of the chiefs of general staff, aimed, first of all, at preventing the military activities of Russia and the United States from turning into a military conflict between our nuclear powers.

 

Q.: But your country is being accused in carrying out the “hybrid wars” against the West.

Shoigu: In Russia we say that it’s a thief himself who screams the loudest “Hold the thief!” The term “hybrid actions” refers to various forms of pressure used by one state against another, but without an open use of military force. Such “wars” are known since ancient times, and they allowed the UK to prevail over the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the last century. Who doesn’t know about the adventures of Lawrence of Arabia?

Today “hybrid wars” include control of media, economic sanctions, hacking activities in cyberspace, backing of internal unrests, finally, deployment of special units and specialists to carry out terror attacks, sabotage and diversion.

This list, perhaps, can be continued further, but there is one important detail. For its successful implementation this century, it is necessary to have global and all-pervasive media, possession of superiority in information and telecommunication technologies, a hold on global financial systems, as well as experience in the deployment and use of special forces in other countries.

 

Q.: What countries, other than the United States and the United Kingdom, have this kind of potential?

Shoigu: These methods were successfully tested by London and Washington during the invasion of Iraq in 1991 immediately after the end of the “cold war.”

This is an important detail, because these technologies existed when the Soviet Union and a bipolar world existed, but there were no opportune conditions. And, by the way, the US president at the time [of the Gulf War] was none other than George H. W. Bush, former director of the CIA.

Since the 1990s, these methods have been actively used by the United States in former Yugoslavia, Libya, [Russia’s] Chechen Republic and, most recently, in Syria. All the signs of the “hybrid war” were apparent in Ukraine ahead of the armed rebellion in February 2014, with the European countries’ passive participation in these “hybrid actions.”

Today, everyone pretends to forget how on the eve of the coup (in Kiev) three foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland personally guaranteed to the legitimate President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych a peaceful settlement of the political crisis, if he does not impose a state of emergency and withdraws all units of the security forces from Kiev. But immediately after the implementation of these obligations, nationalist militants, armed and trained with American and European money, staged a coup, and Europe immediately recognized them as legitimate power.

Accusations of Russia (in hybrid actions) began to appear in the American and British media after an unsuccessful attempt to stage this scenario in Crimea.

 

Q.: Really?

Shoigu: We simply did not give to our overseas colleagues an opportunity to put these measures into practice in Crimea, where, on the contrary, a referendum was held, during which residents freely and, by the way, in the presence of hundreds of representatives of the same American media, voted to withdraw from Ukraine and reunite with Russia. In comparison, after the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia because of the NATO intervention, Kosovo did not hold any general referendums, but achieved immediate recognition of independence by Washington and Europe after the routine parliamentary vote. It was done absolutely ignoring opinion of the Serbs living in Kosovo and the Yugoslavia’s Constitution.

 

Q.: The issue of Syria will be central during the meeting of presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. What’s your idea of the US strategy in the Syrian conflict?

Shoigu: Since US lawmakers and experts have been calling on the US government to clarify its strategy for Syria, our country is not the only one who does not get it.

In recent years during the continuation of this war, illegal from the point of international law, and even according to the US constitution, the official explanations for the presence of the US military contingent in Syria have been constantly changing.

I would like to recall that initially it was about defeating the ISIL, then about preventing re-emergence of the ISIL and now statements are being made about need to preserve military presence in Syria in order to deter alleged influence of Iran.

Therefore, it is hard to shake off the impression that the United States’ chief objective in Syria is to prevent the situation from stabilizing, to prolong the conflict and undermine the country’s territorial integrity by creating enclaves not controlled by the government on Syria’s borders.

In the areas controlled by the United States for years they have been training militants, who are actively fighting with the Syrian government army and receiving supplies of weapons and ammunition.

In addition, it’s not superfluous to recall that during the struggle of the US-led international coalition against ISIS, the territory controlled by terrorists only increased. Civilization and secular governance persisted only in a few pockets: in Damascus, the province of Latakia and partly in Deir ez-Zor.

At the same time, while declaring its ‘noble’ objectives and ‘good’ will in recent years, the United States has not allocated one cent of aid to provide real assistance to Syrian civilians devastated by long years of war. This applies even to the liberated by the United States and the coalition former capital of ISIS Raqqa, where munition and mortars left after massive bombardments by the “international coalition” still kill local residents. Every week, dozens of people are being killed, including children.

On the other hand, not a single incident involving civilians has been recorded after the Syrian troops’ operations to liberate various regions and localities. Demining activities took place there, people received food and construction materials they needed to resume a peaceful life as soon as possible.

If there is some basis for our American counterparts’ actions in Syria, it is too contradictory to be called a “strategy.”

Q.: Another obstacle to the stabilization of Syria is the rivalry between Iran and Israel…

Shoigu: Iran, like Turkey, historically has been one of the main actors in the region and plays a key role in stabilization of the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic.

As you know, Iran, together with Russia and Turkey, is one of the guarantors of the Astana process aimed at finding an agreement for the final settlement of Syrian conflict.

Regarding the tensions between Iran and Israel or other countries, our position is that we are committed to resolving possible differences and contradictions through dialogue, not through military force and violation of international law.

Use of military force by any of these parties in Syria would inevitably lead to an escalation of tension throughout the Middle East. In that regard, we are committed to the peaceful and diplomatic settlement of any differences and we hope that both sides will be able to show restraint.

 

Q.: Don’t you think that a possibility of supplying S-300 systems to Damascus represents an additional risk factor?

Shoigu: I would like to note that the S-300 system is a complex of purely defensive weapons. Therefore, it cannot pose a direct threat to anyone’s national security.

This anti-aircraft missile system can only be a threat to air attack vehicles. Besides, the decision to supply this model of arms to the army of any foreign state is made based on the appropriate request, which has not been made, yet.

Thus, it is premature to talk about this specifically. At the request of some of our Western partners, as well as Israel, a few years ago, we refrained from delivering these complexes to Syria. Today, after the aggression of the United States, Britain and France against Syria, which has demonstrated the need for the Syrians to have modern air defense, we are ready to revisit this issue.

Q.: From the war in Syria to the trade war. If the level of relations with Washington has reached a historical minimum, the relations with China are increasingly strengthening…

Shoigu: Of course, the tension in international relations has contributed to the strengthening of Russian-Chinese relations, which are based on mutual respect and trust. Russia and China have long-term friendly and strategic relations, and cooperation is developing in many areas, including through military agencies, which is in the interests of both states.

Examples of our cooperation include conducted on a bilateral basis joint operational training of the armed forces of our states, including the annual naval drill Sea Cooperation, and a large-scale joint Russian-Chinese naval and an annual series of joint anti-ballistic missile air defense exercises called Aerospace Security.

We conduct multinational military exercises of armies and fleets of the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) the military exercise the Peace Mission. In addition, the Chinese representatives participate in annual competition of the Russia’s Defense Ministry called the International Army Games. Today, about 12% of Russian weapons are exported to China.

At the same time, our joint activities in this area, in contrast to the exercises conducted by NATO and the EU in Europe, are exclusively defensive in nature. Our military partnerships are not directed against any other countries or blocs and serve exclusively to strengthen global and regional security.

Q.: What do you think about the development of the situation in North Korea?

Shoigu: Russia and North Korea have signed a number of agreements in the field of military-technical cooperation, the implementation of which is currently suspended in the framework of the Russian Federation’s implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874.

We are now witnessing a significant reduction in tensions between the North and the South of the Korean Peninsula. We believe that this positive trend is stable and irreversible.

Q.: If we return to Ukraine: do you think it will be possible to find a solution to the current conflict in the South-East of the country?

Shoigu: Only unconditional implementation by Kiev of the Minsk Agreements will allow to exclude emergence of the situation capable to lead to genocide of the Russian population. Unfortunately, Kiev is stubbornly refuses to comply with the agreement, finding various flimsy excuses and making unfounded accusatory statements against Russia.

At the same time, Kiev has been rejecting the very possibility of dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, without which the settlement of this crisis is simply impossible. Of course, our country responds to these developments, constantly calling on Kiev to implement the package of measures that was agreed in Minsk

We hope that the European countries, first and foremost, members of the “Normandy” format, [which includes Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine] will be able to use all their influence on the Ukrainian authorities to reach a peaceful settlement of this internal conflict in southeastern Ukraine.

I believe that a direct confrontation between Ukraine and Russia is impossible. We have common roots, for centuries we have been enduring hardships together and we fought side by side for our freedom and independence during the Second World War. My mother’s family members used to live in Ukraine, I was baptized in a small church in Stakhanov, a town located in Ukraine’s Lugansk region. I am confident that there will never be a place for confrontation or hostility between us, given our common history.

 

————–

Scott Humor,

the Director of Research and Development

My research of the war on Donbass is available at the saker.community book store

The War on Donbass, which is called by the Western politicians and media the “Russian aggression in Ukraine” was a staged psyop.

My illustrated investigation titled Pokémon in Ukraine reveals how this psyop was staged, by whom and why.

%d bloggers like this: