BREAKING NEWS: RUSSIA THREATENS THE UNITED STATES WITH NUCLEAR ATTACK
February 26, 2013 34 Comments
RELATED POSTS:
-
-
RUSSIA IS PREPARING TO ATTACK AMERICA
by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com
United States has not been attacked on the home front for 200 years dating back to the War of 1812. There exists a plethora of confirming information to support the fact that America’s days may be numbered and that we are totally unprepared for what is coming.
Russia, through the traitorous cooperation and complicity of President Obama, is positioning its assets in order to attack Alaska. Before I piece together the many elements of the planned Russian “surprise attack”, it is important for America to understand that it takes a communist to bring communism to America. Obama was bred by communists, raised by communists, educated at the finest schools with communist money, his political career was launched by communists and his controllers in the White House are communists. In this article I will clearly establish the fact that Obama is the lynchpin of a multigenerational plan to hand America over to the Russians and to the Chinese communists.
Obama did not just wake up one day and decide to weaken American defenses and hand over the country to the Russian communists. Obama was groomed for this position for the past several years. He is indeed the right communist, at the right time, whose mission is to bring America the most crippling form of communism the world has ever seen.
Russian Defectors Have Warned the US About This Moment
High-profile Soviet defectors have been telling American intelligence agencies for decades that the Russians have engaged in a multigenerational plot to destabilize America prior to the takeover in which both the Russians and the Chinese will unleash a ferocious military assault upon our country.
The high-ranking defector, Sergei Tretyakov, who repeatedly warned Americans that Russia’s core government had never abandoned the Cold War and still aimed to destroy the United States. In his later years, he said his main goal was to “wake up” the American people to the deadly threat posed to them by the former Soviet Union. His death was reported as a cardiac event, however, his family remains suspicious. Tretyakov joined a plethora of others who defected from the former Soviet Union in order to warn the American people about a planned attack sponsored by the Russian government with assistance from within the American government.
Former Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, a well renowned media/propaganda expert defected to the United States. in 1970, and subsequently exposed the KGB’s subversive tactics against American society. Yuri Bezmenov has conducted a number of interviews in which he explains how Marxist ideology is deconstructing America’s values by controlling the media and which would ultimately serve to demoralize the country, destabilize the economy, and provoke crises in order to Sovietize the United States. Bezmenov is well known for revealing Russia’s doctrine of “ideological subversion”, a slow, long-term multi-decade process of media-based brainwashing in which the sole purpose is to confuse, confound, and destroy the moral base of America. Can anyone argue that our country’s values represent a debasement of our national sense of morality? Every perversion known to mankind in now honored in our media. Christians are out and hedonists are in. Loyal husbands and fathers are out and a philandering lifestyle is a honored “virtue.” On this point, the Russians have won.
Former Russian Colonel Stanislav Lunev has the distinction of being the highest ranking Russian military officer to defect to the United States after doing so in 1992, after Boris Yeltsin came to power. Lunev’s information was considered to be so volatile, but accurate, that the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA placed Lunev, where he remains to this day, in the FBI’s Witness Protection Program. Lunev reported that Russia’s military, despite “losing the cold war”, continues in its war preparations which are designed to conquer the United States by stealth
Anatoliy Golitsyn, a high-ranking KGB defector who fled to the United States in order to warn Americans about the secret Russian plan to attack the United States. Golitsyn is generally considered to be among the first and most revealing on the subject of the secret Russian plans to attack. Having authored the The Perestroika Deception in which Golitsyn wrote about the deceitful intent behind the Leninist strategy in which the present-day Communists are actively pursuing as they fake American style democratization efforts in Russia. According to Golitsyn, the short-term strategic objective of the Russians is to achieve a technological convergence with the West solely on Russian terms and mostly through a series of one-sided disarmament agreements. According to Golitsyn, after the United States military is eliminated as a strategic threat to Russia, the long-range strategic Russian plan is to pursue Lenin’s goal of replacing nation states with collectivist model of regional governments as a stepping stone to global governance. In order to achieve their final goal, Golitsyn states that Russia, after lulling America to sleep, will join with China in order to attack the United States from both the outside and inside as he detailed that …the Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled and enact a “scissors strategy” in which China will attack the US through the southern border and Russia through northern border by way of Alaska. As the reader will clearly see in the following paragraphs, Obama is the catalyst in making these long-range communist plans come to fruition.
Obama the Communist
Obama has been surrounded by nothing but communists for all of his life. From Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, to the husband and wife communist terrorist team of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn from the Weathermen Underground terrorist organization, Obama has known nothing but Marxist communist philosophy in his formative years. The late Senator, Joseph McCarthy, is rolling over in his grave due to the fact that a sitting President has such a retrograde pattern of communist associations and still managed to attain the presidency.
Former FBI Weatherman Task Force supervisor, Max Noel, notes that the FBI utilized a CARL test when it conducted background checks on various suspects. The acronym CARL stands for Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty used to assess candidates fitness to hold the highest office in the country. On each of these four points of power, Obama fails and fails miserably. Like many FBI law enforcement agents and officials, Noel was alarmed by the fact that someone like Barack Obama could capture the presidency. For some unexplained reason, Obama was never vetted before he became a candidate for the presidency by the FBI. This is an unacceptable result of our national security system and is wholly suggestive of internal plot to allow the installation of a blatantly communist advocate into the highest political position in America.
Today, many people have been in a position to now vet the President after Obama’s four years of “fundamentally transforming America“. This particular series will continue to connect the dots of the secretive and nefarious communist background of Barack Hussein Obama and tie his associations, actions and internal belief system to a current coup d’état which is close to capturing all of the vital elements of power in this country.
Comrade Obama’s ascension to the presidency has been a long time in the making. Interestingly, Barack Obama’s past associates especially the communist terrorists which funded his Harvard legal education and ultimately launched his political career as an Illinois state senator, namely, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, have been in lockstep with Obama his entire adult life. However, Dohrn and Ayers were not the first to indoctrinate Obama with the Marxist communist philosophy. For that information, we have to begin with Frank Marshall Davis.
Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party and a former Soviet Agent who was under FBI investigation for a total of 19 years. In 1948, Davis moved from Chicago to Hawaii leaving behind a colleague named Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Senior White House advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Yes, the Jarrett’s are communists as well. Both Jarrett and Davis wrote for a left wing newspaper called the Chicago Defender in which they espoused a communist takeover of the United States Government. In 1971, Davis, according to Joel Gilbert, reunited with his then nine-year-old son, Barack Obama, and schooled him in the ways of being a good communist for the next nine years.
Chicago Slum Lord, Valerie Jarrett
White House advisers, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, were both “Red Diaper Babies, in which they were the sons and daughters of well-to-do parents who desired communism and lived out their dreams through their children’s revolutionary activities. Other notable red-diaper babies also included Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder. Jarrett’s situation is particularly interesting in that her family and the Ayers family have been multigenerational friends which also included a marriage between the two families. Much of the Obama administration is a nest of communists and this should serve to gravely concern every American citizen.
Following the nine years of mentoring and parenting by Frank Davis, Obama made some very important communist connections which ultimately led to him obtaining an impressive college education financed by some very familiar communist activists’, namely, Tom Ayers, Con Ed CEO, and then his son Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. You remember Bill and Bernardine, don’t you?
Bill Ayers Mug Shot
The Prairie Fire book was co-authored by Dohrn and Ayers, and, quite unbelievably, it was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedy’s assassin. Former FBI informant, While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Larry Grathwohl, revealed that he testified in a court of law that Ayers and Dohrn had direct involvement in a terrorist plot which killed San Francisco police sergeant, Brian V. McDonnell, by a bomb made and planted by these Weathermen Underground terrorists.
Grathwohl also revealed that he asked Ayers, in a meeting of about 25 well-to do Weatherman, most with advanced degrees from Ivy League Universities, what the Weathermen planned to do when they achieved their goal of a communist take over the government. Grathwohl stated that Ayers paused for a moment and then said that it was likely that about 50 million Americans will have to be re-educated in concentration camps located in the American Southwest and that about 25 million would have to be eliminated, meaning that they would have to be murdered. Bill and Bernardine’s Weather Underground had the support of Cuba, East German intelligence and the North Vietnamese. I believe that since Obama was able to secure a second term, and with the power granted to him by the NDAA, that he will fulfill Ayers’ promise to Grathwohl to murder 25 million Americans who cannot be “re-educated”.
Obama’s educational and political benefactors, Ayers and Dohrn, raised a son, Chesa Boudin, who worked for Hugo Chavez , communist dictator in charge of Venezuela. Chesa Boudin was the child of Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, members of a Weather Underground spin-off group who went to prison for an armored car robbery that resulted in the murders of two police officers and a security guard. Dohrn served seven months for her role in the robbery and this is the reason that she is ineligible to become bar certified as an attorney. Is anyone else uncomfortable with the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were the ones primarily responsible for educating Obama with communist funds and then subsequently launched his political career from their living room? Well, it is true, please read on.
Allen Hulton, a 39 year veteran of the postal service, provided a sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, AZ. Sheriff investigators, led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an effort toward determining whether or not former foreign college student, Barack Obama, is eligible to be placed on Arizona’s 2012 election ballot. After reviewing Hulton’s affidavit, it is apparent that Ayers and Dohrn were in fact the de facto adoptive parents to this foreign student destined to become the first illegitimate President of the United States. As a result, Obama was treated to the finest Ivy League education that communist backed money could buy as Hulton maintains that the Ayers’ told him that they were financing the education of a promising foreign student at Harvard. Hulton also testified that he met Obama while at the Ayer’s home and he asked Obama what he going to do with all his education, to which Obama politely answered, “I am going to become the President”.
Readers should take note that this is an affidavit, and as such, is formally considered to be evidence, not conjecture or hearsay. There can be no other conclusion that the communist terrorist, Bill Ayers, began grooming Obama to become America’s first communist President during Obama’s college years. Their relationship continues into the present time as it is on record that Ayers visited the White House in August of 2009.
We also know that Obama’s communist affiliations continued well into his adulthood because of the good work of Joel Gilbert who discovered that Obama was active with a Weathermen Underground support group known as The May 19th Communist Organization, in New York. Perhaps, this is why Ayers was visiting the White House.
Frank Chapman, a communist activist and a member of the communist front group known as the World Peace Council. Chapman clearly used the term “mole” to describe Obama. He said Obama’s political climb and subsequent success in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries was “a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” Chapman further stated that, “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through. The Communist Party USA backs Obama to the hilt.” It is clear that Obama is their man!
America is at a serious crossroads. The United States is preparing to go to war with Iran and its allies, China and Russia, in a last ditch effort to save the Petrodollar scheme as opposed to letting China and Russia buy Iranian oil in gold. If America loses this struggle, the dollar will collapse. America’s economy is in shambles and the country can ill-afford being purposely run into the ground by a series of red-diaper babies bent on the communist takeover of this country. There can be no doubt about it, Barack Obama is a traitor to this country. He is the culmination of a distinct and purposeful mufti-generational communist plot to install a communist dictator who would weaken this country to the point that it is very vulnerable to an outside Russian attack.
Russian troops have infiltrated the United States and all signs in and around Alaska point to the fact that the Russian attack will commence through the Bering Strait and proceed southward into British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
-
WHY RUSSIA NEEDS ALASKA
by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com
It is now clear that any Russian attack upon the United States will come through Alaska and I’m of the opinion that Russia will not wait for us to attack Iran before attacking the United States. The following paragraphs will demonstrate why Alaska is so vitally important to the fulfillment of Russia’s communist plans for world domination.
The Heartland Theory
British geographer and military historian, Sir Halford MacKinder, in 1904, wrote an article that changed how politicians and military men viewed the world. It was a perception that influenced Hitler to send his troops eastward in an attack upon Russia in 1940. It was also the driving force that led to the underpinnings for superpower foreign policy which guided foreign policy for both sides during the Cold War. The theory that had so influenced nearly three generations of strategists was called simply, the Heartland Theory.
Basically, Mackinder’s Heartland Theory viewed geo-political military history as a struggle between land-based and sea-based powers. Mackinder believed the world had become a “closed” system, with virtually no new lands left for the Europeans powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without creating chaos elsewhere. According to the theory the common denominator for world conflict has been reduced to sea powers vs. land-based powers which would subsequently struggle for dominance of the world, and the ultimate victor would be in a position to set up a world empire. The determining factor in this struggle was physical geography; “Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls”.
Containing Russia Is the Key to World Peace
From Mackinder’s perspective, Soviet Russia had to be contained within the heartland. Mackinder’s believed that whosoever controlled Eurasia, controlled the world, so long as the controller had access to useable ports. The problem for Russia is that they have so few usable ports thus impacting commerce and the movement of men and material in a time of war. So long as Russian could be prevented from being a major sea power, the forces of the United States and Western Europe were safe. However, if Russia should become a sea power in conjunction with its massive land-based power, Russia could rule the world.
Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms the Heartland Theory, in his book, A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the US-Soviet Contest (pp 22-23), n which he echoed the words of Mackinder when he stated that “Whoever controls Eurasia dominates the globe. If the Soviet Union captures the peripheries of this landmass … it would not only win control of vast human, economic and military resources, but also gain access to the geostrategic approaches to the Western Hemisphere – the Atlantic and the Pacific.” For Russia, controlling the peripheries of the landmass means controlling Alaska and having access to its ports. This would make Russia the world’s most preeminent land and sea power and the world would have to pay homage to the new global master.
Stalin’s Secret Plans to Invade Alaska In 1951
In 1999, at a conference held at Yale University, previously-secret Russian documents revealed that Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin had undergone extensive planning in preparation to invade North America as early as 1951. The event was one of a series of programs sponsored by the Washington D.C.-based Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), which monitors new documents pertaining to the Cold War. The Yale conference centered on Stalin’s relationship with the United States.
These documents, from the Cold War, revealed that Stalin had a definitive plan to attack Alaska in 1951-52 and had undergone major military preparations in anticipation of the invasion. Russia has always considered itself to be landlocked and this served as the major motivation for Russia’s planned incursion which would have given Russia access to good sea ports. Stalin subsequently died and the plans were abandoned, at least temporarily.
Suspicious Happenings In Alaska
In light of the evidence, it is abundantly clear that there are clear economic, political and military reasons why the Russians would want to occupy Alaska. My interest in this topic surfaced quite serendipitously as a couple of listeners to my radio program sent me information on the Agenda 21 invasion of small Alaska communities, and oh, by the way, they also reported that they were seeing Russian troops in their respective communities.
The sighting of Russian troops in small Alaskan towns such Ketchikan, Alaska, got my undivided attention. Ketchikan is the southeastern most city in Alaska. With an estimated population of 8,050. Ketchikan is the fifth-most populous city in the state. Another area where there are civilian sightings of Russian troops is in Sitka, Alaska. The City of Sitka, formerly New Archangel under Russian rule, is located on Baranof Island and the southern half of Chichagof Island in the Alexander Archipelago of the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, one military veteran reports seeing Russian submarines, on a frequent basis, just off the coast. Further, there are civilian reports of Russian vehicles and troops moving through Alaska north of Anchorage. These are only anecdotal accounts and further proof is required in to validate these eyewitness accounts. Yet, there are indeed verifiable, reported media accounts of Russian troops on American soil.
The presence of Russian troops on American soil is very troublesome. America does not need to rely on the anecdotal accounts of Alaskan civilians to be concerned about the presence of Russian troops on American soil. Russian commandos are also “training” at Fort Carson, in Colorado Springs since last spring. Why is this concerning? The United States is about to go to war with Iran for selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold instead of the Petrodollar. Russia and China have threatened to nuke the United States if it dares to attack Iran. Russia is, and should be considered to be an enemy of the United States.
A Stunning Act of Treason
Obama has given away seven strategic, oil-rich Alaskan islands to the Russians at a time when we could be going to war with Russia. At minimum, the oil, alone, from these Islands should be considered to be a military asset. I remain very concerned that these seven islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea could also be used as a military staging area from which to invade Alaska and defend its new claims of the mineral rich resources at the North Pole.
The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake, related to these seven Islands. Didn’t Obama promise energy independence. Didn’t this proven communist president promise to help the economy bounce back by lessening our dependence on foreign oil? And despite our ongoing economic depression, Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline a few months ago. Perhaps, very soon, America will not need the Keystone Pipeline because Alaska will not be remaining as a viable member of the United States. To those who think that Obama would never sacrifice Alaska to Russia, then please tell us “conspiracy theorists” why he would give away seven Islands, one as big as Delaware, with great natural resources, to the Russians? This is a case of bold-faced treason plain and simple. Obama and his cabinet should be arrested, tried and sentenced as we would with any traitor. Yet, there is more.
The Giveaway of Alaska
There exists documented facts which support the reasons why Alaska should be placed on high alert.
Russia recently sent four brigades to the Arctic. The Arctic can be used as a staging area for the invasion of the North Pole to protect its recent mineral claims, but more importantly, this area of the Arctic could serve as a base of operations from which to invade Alaska with the help of pre-positioned assets within the state.
In March of 2012, with a microphone left on. Obama made an unguarded comment to Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev to be “more lenient on nuclear issues” because he could be more flexible “after the November election”. Does more flexible mean killing the Keystone Pipeline prior to giving away seven rich Alaskan Islands to the Russians? Does more flexible mean letting the Russians train in Colorado Springs and in Alaska? Does being more flexible mean compromising our defense of Alaska?
More Treason From Obama
Although some journalists have said that they suspect that Obama is preparing to give away Alaska to Russia. I previously did not see how a sitting president could do such a thing and remain in office. However, if Russia were to militarily seize Alaska, that would provide Obama with a plausible excuse in which he claims America was caught off guard and the danger was unforeseen. Obama could best accomplish this by weakening the defenses of Alaska and the evidence is supportive of this suspicion. The evidence does not support a timetable, however, I would guess that this event may transpire in Obama’s last year in office, or possibly in the lame duck session where he cannot be held accountable. This article will hopefully remove Obama’s ability to excuse away the notion that America lost Alaska because it go caught with its proverbial pants down.
The giving away of seven strategic, oil-rich Islands is a good start to support a claim of treason because Obama is purposely weakening the defense of Alaska. Also, local residents along the Alaskan coast have reported to me that the massive over flights along the coast have all but ceased. The F-22′s have disappeared. The Air Force says the flights have been suspended because of oxygen concerns which are impacting the pilots. Then shouldn’t the flights be replaced by F-16′s? What about national security?These over flights have been a staple of Alaskan defense since the Cold War. If we are close to war with Iran and its ally, Russia, then shouldn’t we beefing up our patrols in Alaska?
Recently the ATF asked for gun registration records in Alaska. Perhaps the Russians need to know, in advance, where the most civilian opposition will come from when they take over Alaska.
Are Plans Being Made For a Post-Russian Takeover of Alaska?
It is now on the record that Putin said that he was going to make his country the greatest country, economically, as he said in print that he is claiming part of Alaska. Adding fuel to the fire, it is now clear that Russia is also establishing plans for an Arctic industrialization. In geopolitical and military terms, it could be an easy to claim to make if the military resistance in Alaska is greatly compromised, and it has been.
The last thing that country should do on a potential front line area is to close military facilities and bases, yet, this is exactly what is happening in Alaska. Obama and the Base Realignment and Closure Commission have been closing bases and/or reducing base operations all through Alaska. It has gotten so bad that the Alaskan Governor hired a lobbyist to prevent military reduction.
Two years ago, a prominent Russia Professor predicted the end of the United States. The professor stated that Alaska would return to the control of Russia and that the United States would be split into six pieces. John McCain recently said “I think it’s very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire.”
There is also a tunnel from Russia to Alaska being constructed. Are we funding our own demise with our tax money which is designed to set up Russia’s future? Last summer, Russia challenged west coast detection capabilities of our military by making provocative moves with their submarines inside of our territorial waters. Also, in a stunning move, Putin banned adoptions of Russian children by American parents. Could it be likely that he is looking out for the Russian adoptees as this is a reaction to what Putin knows is coming?
Conclusion
Should we be closing bases on the potential front lines? Should we be failing to patrol off of our coast? Should we allow the unchallenged sightings of surfaced Russian subs close to the coastline? Any one of these events should be considered to be a serious national security concern. Yet, the media and Obama act as if all is well.
There are a lot of dots on this wall to connect. However, there is one monumental dot to seriously consider. Subsequently, I have some final questions. If Obama is willing to give away seven oil-rich Islands in the area of Alaska, during these tough economic times, then what exactly isn’t he capable of doing to the United States? Is the sacrifice of Alaska so far-fetched in light of these other considerations? Aren’t the apparent Russian plans to seize Alaska part of the fulfillment of the Heartland Theory in which Mother Russia propels itself in the status of the world’s super power by making itself both a land and sea power through the seizure of Alaska?
When someone can provide a plausible set of answers to the questions that I have raised here, then I will continue to sound the alarm that “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.”
-
RUSSIAN BOMBERS TARGET ALASKA
Russian military again flies strategic bombers near Alaska
-
-
BY: | Washington Free Beacon
May 6, 2013
Russian strategic bombers conducted flights within the U.S. defense zone close to northern Alaska and the Aleutian Islands last week in Moscow’s latest incident of nuclear saber rattling against the United States, according to defense and military officials.
Two Bear H nuclear-capable bombers were detected flying into the military’s Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) near the Aleutians, where a strategic missile defense radar is located, and Alaska’s North Slope region by the Arctic and Chukchi Seas on April 28 and 29, military officials told the Washington Free Beacon.
Lt. Cmdr. Bill Lewis, a spokesman with the U.S. Northern Command, confirmed the fighter intercept of the latest bomber incursion but declined to provide details.
“Two U.S. F-22′s from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, were launched and visually identified Russian aircraft on the night of April 28, as the Russian Air Force flew standard out of area flights near Alaska,” Lewis said.
The bombers did not enter U.S. airspace, he said.
However, the Alaska ADIZ is a formal national security zone used by the military to monitor both civilian and military aircraft. The dispatch of F-22s is an indication the bomber flights posed a potential threat to U.S. territory.
It was the fifth incident of Russian strategic bombers flying against the United States since June, when Bear bombers were intercepted near Alaska during a large-scale Russian strategic nuclear exercise that Russian military officials said involved practice strikes against U.S. missile defense sites in Alaska.
Less than a month later, on July 4, two more Bears flew the closest to the northern California coast that Russian aircraft have flown since the days of the Soviet Union.
Then in February two Bears circled Guam, a key U.S. military hub in the Pacific.
Additionally, Backfire strategic bombers flew simulated strikes against U.S. missile defenses and bases in Japan last month.
U.S. officials say the stepped-up Russian bomber flights are part of Moscow’s attempt to influence U.S. missile defense policies. Russia, along with China, for years opposed U.S. missile defense programs through propaganda and influence operations. Both states want the defenses curtailed to protect their strategic offensive missiles, which are currently being expanded.
The Pentagon in March announced it was adding 14 new long-range missile interceptors to the 30 ground-based interceptors based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in announcing the added interceptors, also said the Pentagon is canceling an advanced Navy SM-3 interceptor that was to be deployed in Europe and would be capable of shooting down long-range missiles from Iran.
The latest bomber incursion near Alaska also followed the April 14 visit to Moscow by National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, who presented a letter from President Barack Obama to the Russians on missile defenses. Details of the letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin remain secret but Russian officials described it as containing a number of proposals “promoting dialogue and cooperations.”
Obama was overheard on an open microphone in March 2012 telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in dealing with Russia on missile defenses, an indication he is preparing to make further concessions limiting U.S. missile defenses in future talks.
Administration officials have said publicly there are no plans to limit U.S. missile defenses in the talks.
Moscow is demanding legally binding guarantees that U.S. missile defenses in Europe will not be used to target Russian offensive ballistic missiles.
U.S. officials said Obama appears to be preparing to make concessions to the Russians on missile defenses as a way to seek a new round of strategic arms cuts with Moscow. He is set to visit Russia in September when arms control is expected to be a major topic of discussion.
Northern Command did not announce the April 28 bomber incident and declined to release details on the latest flights as part of the Obama administration’s conciliatory policy of seeking to “reset” ties with Russia.
However, two days after the incident the command issued a press release highlighting its cooperation with the Russian military announcing plans for a joint U.S.-Russian flight exercise designed to counter hijacked aircraft.
The statement said Russian air force officials on April 27 completed talks with Northern Command officials at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., on the next exercise dubbed Vigilant Eagle 2013.
The exercise will be held in August in Anchorage and at Anadyr, home of a major strategic bomber base in the Russian Far East where the string of bomber flights are believed by U.S. officials to have been launched.
The exercise “will focus on national procedures for monitoring the situation and the cooperative hand-off of a hijacked aircraft from one nation to the other while exchanging air tracking information.”
The exercise series is “an extraordinary and historic opportunity for NORAD and the Russian Federation to coordinate on the response to a mutually acknowledged hijacking threat,” said Joe Bonnet, director of joint training and exercises for NORAD and U.S. Northern Command. “From a participant’s perspective, it is more than a military exercise; it is creating lasting bonds and partnerships extremely valuable for the security of our nations.”
The last exercise in August 2012 was a “computer-assisted” simulation. The next exercise will involve “live-fly” of aircraft.
“This year’s exercise will continue building and strengthening the cooperation and partnership established between the two countries,” the statement said.
Some defense officials and military analysts are questioning why the command would seek to cooperate with the Russians at a time when Moscow is flying threatening bomber missions against the United States.
While the exact nature of the training mission flown by the Bear Hs during the April 28 flight is not known, one official said it was likely targeting practice against the Cobra Dane radar located on Shemya Island in the far western Aleutians. The North Slope flight was probably designed to signal that Russia is preparing to strike the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the official said.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a former Alaska Air Command commander, said: “The Russians continue to play the administration like a fiddle, sending signals that they still have a strategic air force and can project power while the U.S. continues to ground alert squadrons and unilateral disarms.”
“Is this the administration’s idea of ‘reset relations’ with Russia?” he asked.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, a former director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), told the Free Beacon last month after the Russian bomber practice against Asian missile defenses that the flights are a clear sign Moscow has no interest in cooperating with the United States on missile defenses.
“I engaged with the Russians regularly as MDA director to propose cooperation on missile defense,” Obering said. “After I retired, I participated in a group led by [former National Security Adviser] Steve Hadley which proposed an architecture which would allow for cooperation without impinging on each nation’s sovereignty and would prevent the disclosure of any sensitive technology or information. These efforts were met with Russian intransigence.”
The Russian opposition and bomber flights mean Moscow will not cooperate with the United States in any meaningful way, Obering said.
As a result, he said, the United States should make no concessions to the Russians and instead should pursue U.S. national security interests in defending American territory and allies.
-
THE GATHERING RED STORM
by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
January 30, 2013
It’s difficult to not look at world events these days and feel as though we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. Things are heating up even more and the clock is now at about 30 seconds to midnight.
One wonders where all this will lead… Well, if the current course is kept, straight into hell, probably. That is by design and has been planned on for a very long time.
From Trevor Loudon:
If it comes to war, one joint Russia/China plan is for Russia to nuke the hell out of the continental United States. After Obama has finished decimating what is left of the US nuclear arsenal of course. The Russians will then invade Alaska and parts of Canada, but not the lower ’48. China will then invade across the Pacific. They will lose millions of troublesome young men, but they eventually get a foothold. Then their allies in Latin America will invade across the Mexican border… and the Red Dawn will break.
You can count North Korea in that mix as well. It has always been the plan of the Russians to use Iran as a proxy army to take control of the Middle East and the energy resources at play. But would any of them really come after the US?
The answer to that question is a definitive ‘yes.’ Being separated from most of our enemies by an ocean gives us the illusion of safety, but that should have been shattered after 9-11. However, America’s apathy runs deep these days and most people fell back to sleep or into an encompassing lethargy when a would-be dictator started trashing the Constitution and our God given rights. While we tear ourselves apart as a nation, our enemies are salivating, awaiting the right opportunity to strike.
I contend that Obama is setting us up for just such an attack. And as Trevor Loudon astutely points out, it will most likely come from several enemies at once. With a depleted nuclear arsenal and a massively weakened military, the hour is drawing nigh that an attack will be forthcoming. Think about it… if you were our powerful enemies, what would you do? You would attack of course when your enemy is at their weakest financially and militarily – like right about now. Consider this scenario:
- North Korea launches 2 or 3 EMPs over the United States with no warning, or so little that we have no time to take evasive measures.
- Russia invades Alaska and parts of Canada.
- China launches an attack via the Pacific Ocean with millions of soldiers. The sheer numbers alone would overwhelm our current defenses.
- Iran, Venezuela and Cuba attack from the South. With a fully open border and with no guard there whatsoever, hordes of terrorists would slash their way through with absolutely no pity or remorse for the bloody trail of bodies left behind.
Now consider if these all happen at once. Not possible, you say? Both Russia and China have been busy building their military forces up, while the United States has been scaling radically down in that arena. Iran now has nuclear capability as does North Korea. Aside from the energy resources in the Middle East, what would be the biggest prize ever? Bringing down America, invading her and conquering a once free nation. All our enemies need to do is team up, pillage and plunder, then divide the spoils of war. See Sun Tzu. It would be the ultimate redistribution of wealth.
If that is not enough to haunt your dreams, consider this… What if Progressives made deals for themselves with our enemies while betraying our closest ally? For land, resources, slaves, security, power… No? Then tell me why we are being so cozy with the Chinese, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Russians for that matter. With Obama’s reelection, he can be much more flexible. Why is Obama deliberately bankrupting our nation? And why is money massively being withdrawn from our banks? It seems to me that Obama and the Communists are really close in their goals for this country. Just this last week, CPUSA was cheering Obama on gun restrictions.
Remember, Communism as articulated in the various Communist documents, asserts that nobody owns anything – that the group owns everything. But because in practice that doesn’t work, an elite self-appointed class takes control and endeavors to enforce the ideals of Communism on the proletariat. Thus, implementing in practice a form of fascism, nominally called “Communism.” The Muslim creeds implement an unabashed fascism from the beginning. So our enemies all have fascism in common. Even those regimes that are nominally Communist, wind up implementing fascism because completely decentralized control doesn’t work when there is no ownership. You see, our enemies have a lot in common ideology wise and they all want the United States’ land and resources.
So, while our Progressives have been calling for the end of the Constitution, the Chinese have been busy buying up billions in real estate here in the US. They are now buying up our utilities and natural resources as well. They are buying up major companies such as battery makers as well. This is just Communist foreplay. The problem with the US is that we are an instant gratification society. Long range planning for us is what is for dinner tonight. Long range planning for our enemies is the demise and conquest of America.
We hear very little in the media about what is facing us militarily. Even Pravda sees more clearly what is going on in the States than many Americans do. As the gathering red storm advances on America, will we react in time to save ourselves?
When the EMPs and nuclear weapons begin to fly, it will be a little too late to rally the troops to our defense.
-
RED ALERT: U.S. GOVERNMENT IS PREPARING FOR A SOVIET STYLE PURGE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
-
OBAMA’S SOVIET STYLE PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA REVEALED
-
Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
He favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)
Obama favors a collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).
He favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.
Obama shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.
He places reliance on international institutions (i.e. United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization and NATO), international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).
Obama advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
-
CARSON: OBAMA TRYING TO ‘DESTROY THE COUNTRY’
Dr. Benjamin Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital who garnered national headlines for his pointed remarks at last month’s National Prayer Breakfast, says that President Obama and his political allies are trying to “destroy the country.”
“Let’s say somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation,” Carson postulated in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now.”
Carson, who is 62, said that the blame for the nation’s current state of affairs does not lie with “any one particular person.” His barbs, though, were clearly aimed at President Obama.
Drawing a link between his medical practice and his political beliefs, Carson argued that righting the nation’s course requires governance “of and by the people.” “That’s why we have these complex brains,” he explained, and went on to joke, “the number of interconnections you have [between neurons] rivals the national debt.”
In an event billed as “President Obama’s (National Prayer) Breakfast Club,” Carson shared the stage with Eric Metaxas, the author of a biography of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who used his time on stage at 2012’s breakfast to argue that progressives have distorted Christianity in the service of political ideology.
-
JOEL SKOUSEN: THE GLOBALISTS PLAN TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS REVEALED
Published on Oct 20, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel
The world is getting increasingly unstable. Debt levels are unsustainable, world financial markets are calling for constant bailouts, and the US is continuing to antagonize the Middle East with military intervention. Any number of these crises can lead to a break down in the social order of the high density urban areas of the United States. Could you survive without public utilities or supermarkets through a winter? Are there enough people around you that are prepared to band together and help one another during social unrest? More and more people are reevaluating their living arrangements to be prepared for prolonged disasters. But what if you have to stay in a big city for work? Have you developed some contingency plans? Are you located in a part of the city that will allow escape through the rural byways? Have you made a transportation plan? And, what can be done to secure your home now in case you can’t get out in a crisis? Strategic Relocation has the answers.
-
JOEL SKOUSEN: ORDER OUT OF CHAOS BY DESIGN
Alex Jones talks with World Affairs Brief publisher, author and retreat consultant Joel Skousen.
-
One of the signs I look for in the approach to a globalist world war is that the government and the media suddenly change course and start warning about the threat (without ever apologizing for their former appeasement). That isn’t happening—they are still covering for both Russia and China. But when it does begin, then you’ll know that war is inevitable, that it’s too late to stop. The belated warnings are so that the PTB can’t be accused of not warning us—even though it was clearly too late. – Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief, March 8, 2013
-
JOEL SKOUSEN: OBAMA IS CREATING A THIRD WORLD AMERICA
-
-
RUSSIA CONTINUES INTERNAL ATTACKS
by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief
February 22, 2013
It’s important to keep track of how Russia intends to reconstitute the Soviet Union, a necessary prelude to a direct threat to the West. What Strategypage.com reported this week is part of that emerging new threat:
Russia continues its transformation back into a police state. Foreigners are demonized and foreign aid organizations are banned. Now the government wants to eliminate independent Russian charities. This is based on the fear that any independent organization is a potential threat to the state. –Very Soviet and this attitude has a lot of support inside Russia who still see many enemies of the state wandering around.
The new police state mentality requires a lot of external enemies to make Russians frightened enough to tolerate all the new restrictions. This includes using the state-controlled media to demonize the traditional (Soviet era) enemies (West Europe and the United States). This has caused a lot of anger and frustration in West Europe. For example, government propaganda complaining about Western anti-missile systems as a ploy to disarm Russia, not stop missile attacks from Iran or North Korea, is seen as absurd by other Europeans.
This paranoia, constantly delivered by state controlled media, finds many receptive minds inside Russia. Here, paranoia about the outside world, especially the West, has been a cultural staple for centuries. Senior Russian military leaders openly discuss how Russia might be forced to attack Western anti-missile systems, in self-defense. This was mainly for internal consumption, but it alarms foreigners.
-
U.S. THINK TANK REPORT MAKES REALISTIC PLANS FOR NUCLEAR WAR
By Peter Symonds
1 May 2013
A paper published in mid-April by the Washington-based think tank, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), is a chilling indication of the discussions underway and the preparations being made within the US defence establishment for nuclear war.
CSIS strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman is dismissive of nuclear arms control treaties and negotiations, declaring that developing arms races in Asia and the Middle East “demand a strategy that looks beyond arms control and considers a much grimmer future.”
Cordesman leaves no doubt as to what that future might be. The title of his paper, “Red Lines, Deadlines, and Thinking the Unthinkable: India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and China”, is a direct reference to the Cold War strategist Herman Kahn who coldly calculated a strategy for fighting and “winning” a nuclear war.
As Cordesman notes: “Early in the thermonuclear age, Herman Kahn warned the world that it had to ‘think about the unthinkable’: The consequences of an actual nuclear war, and consider which side—if any—might ‘win’.” He continued: “The end of the Cold War seemed to put an end to the need for such thinking, but recent developments in North Korea and Iran make it all too clear that there is still a need for such horrifying yet ‘realist’ analysis.”
In his book “On Thermonuclear War” written in 1960, Kahn argued that life would go on after a devastating nuclear exchange, whether hundreds of millions died or only a few major cities were destroyed. It was necessary, he claimed, for Americans to accept the consequences, no matter how horrifying, because without the willingness to push the button, nuclear war preparations were just an elaborate bluff.
The CSIS paper has a particular significance. Cordesman is well-connected within American defence, intelligence and foreign policy circles, having served at senior levels in the State Department, the Defence Department and acted as consultant on a range of military issues including as part of the Strategic Assessment Group in 2009 that helped devise Obama’s strategy for the AfPak war.
The CSIS has been closely associated with Obama’s “pivot to Asia” that is aimed at containing China. A report last July commissioned by the US Defence Department, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region”, identified “China’s rising power, influence and expectations of regional pre-eminence” as “the most significant problem for the United States in Asia today.” It assessed the US military repositioning and build-up already underway in Asia in preparation for any war with China and outlined further steps that could be made.
Cordesman devotes the bulk of his paper to the prospects of a nuclear war involving India/Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, leaving China to last. In each case the paper provides a detailed assessment of the nuclear capabilities of the rival states and assesses the strategic consequences of a nuclear conflict in brutally “realist” terms.
On South Asia, the paper warns that the arms build-up could lead to nuclear war, as both India and Pakistan have “a history of overreaction, nationalism, and failure to demonstrate stability and restraint in arms control.” It expresses concern that neither “has really thought out the consequences of a nuclear exchange beyond the ‘Duke Nukem’ school of planning: who can kill more of the enemy.”
But Cordesman’s ghoulish conclusion is that a South Asian nuclear war—a conflict that would bring death and suffering to tens if not hundreds of millions—would not affect the US and its allies. “The good news, from a ruthlessly ‘realist’ viewpoint,” he states, “is that such a human tragedy does not necessarily have serious grand strategic consequences for other states, and might well have benefits… Some fallout perhaps, but not that much in terms of serious radiation exposure measured in rads. The loss of India and Pakistan might create some short term economic issues for importers of goods and services. However, the net effect would shift benefits to other suppliers without any clear problems in substitutions or costs.”
On Iran, Cordesman is preoccupied with the consequences of a US-led “preventative strikes” against the country’s nuclear facilities and military. He acknowledges that Iran has no nuclear weapons but regurgitates the unsubstantiated claims that it intends to build them. The paper notes that such attacks could well drive Tehran into constructing a nuclear bomb, triggering a regional arms race and the need for a US nuclear build-up in the Middle East. All of this heightens the risk of a nuclear war, especially involving Israel, which already has a significant nuclear arsenal. Having surveyed the dangers, Cordesman is pessimistic that the current sanctions can force Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and concludes that “some redlines are deadlines and make it time to act.” In other words, the US should launch “preventative strikes” on Iran in the near future.
On North Korea, the paper acknowledges the very rudimentary and limited character of Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. Its concerns about North Korea focus primarily on China and how to exploit the tinderbox on the Korean Peninsula to the advantage of US imperialism. While making no reference to Obama’s pivot, Cordesman is clearly making his calculations in the context of Washington’s aggressive drive to strengthen alliances throughout Asia and to “rebalance” its military forces in preparation for a potential war with China.
Cordesman makes clear that North Korea is a convenient pretext to put pressure on China, not only to bring Pyongyang under control, but to press for other concessions, including limits on its military and nuclear capacity. Admitting that “North Korea is only part of the problem,” he suggests that the US could “tacitly encourage” its allies, South Korea and Japan, to create “at least precision-guided conventional missile forces and possibly nuclear forces as a local regional counterbalance to the Chinese nuclear effort.” In other words, while “scarcely a desirable option”, the US should consider deliberately fuelling a nuclear arms race in North East Asia as part of US war preparations against China.
Cordesman’s analysis of North Korea makes clear that his central preoccupation is China—not conflicts between India/Pakistan, or Israel/Iran, which would not have “grand strategic consequences” for US imperialism. His two-page section on China is as disturbing for what it omits as for what it contains. Unlike the preceding sections, the paper avoids making any analysis of the devastating consequences of a nuclear war between the US and China, which would inevitably draw in all nuclear powers and condemn what remained of humanity to barbarism.
The omission is by no means accidental. Cordesman is well aware that what he is advocating—the preparations for nuclear war with China—has horrific implications for the American people, and humanity as a whole, and will provoke resistance and opposition. Nevertheless, he is emphatic in opposing Obama’s talk of a “zero option”—that is, the elimination of the US nuclear arsenal through arms reduction talks with Russia. “Quite frankly,” he states, “it is both incompetent and intellectually dishonest to decouple China’s expanding nuclear and missile forces from the US and Russian strategic and theatre nuclear balance.”
The US should not “fail to assess Chinese nuclear weapons developments as openly and transparently as it assesses its other military options, or somehow talk about zero options as if the nuclear arms race in Asia was not now more important in terms of deterrence and warfighting risks than the nuclear balance with Russia and Europe,” the paper concludes.
The Obama administration has never had the slightest intention of eliminating the US stockpile of nuclear bombs or the imposing array of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and strategic bombers that can deliver them anywhere in the world. The arms talks have been the means for disguising the maintenance and ongoing modernisation of the American nuclear strike capacity, which far exceeds those of its rivals. According to estimates cited by Cordesman, the US has approximately 5,113 nuclear warheads, compared to China’s total of about 240.
The CSIS paper is clearly part of discussions taking place in the top levels of the American state apparatus. It points to a broader shift in policy—to make preparations for fighting “an actual nuclear war” and “winning.” Significantly, the chief target is China, which is also the central focus of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia.”
Far from diminishing the dangers of nuclear war, the end of the Cold War has heightened it. The rivalries that were regulated within the framework of detente have been let loose and are now intensifying dramatically under the impact of the global economic crisis. US imperialism is determined to offset its historic decline by using its military might to maintain world dominance. It regards China as a dangerous potential rival that has to be dealt with sooner, rather than later.
The preparations for conventional and nuclear war are taking place behind the backs of the American people and the people around the world. The willingness of US strategists like Cordesman to devise realistic plans that involve the annihilation of hundreds of millions of people raises the necessity of the people to react sooner, rather than later.
-
GLOBAL THERMAL NUCLEAR WAR UNDER OBAMA WOULD BE UNSURVIVABLE
-
-
STEVE QUAYLE: OBAMA IS PREPARING FOR A TOTAL TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES
–
-
GENERAL W.G. BOYKIN (RET.) “MARXISM IN AMERICA”
General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how current government actions parallel Marxist tactics.
-
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND WANTED TO HAND THE UNITED STATES OVER TO RUSSIA AND CHINA
-
GEORGE GREEN: THE PLAN FOR THE GLOBAL ELITE TO CONTROL THE WORLD
-
RELATED POSTS:
EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2013 INTO LAW ON JANUARY 2, 2013
EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015
CALIFORNIA GUN CONFISCATION BILL PASSES, APPROVES $24 MILLION TO EXPEDITE ILLEGAL GUN SEIZURE
CALIFORNIANS SIGN PETITION TO REPEAL THE FIRST AMENDMENT
CONNECTICUT LAWMAKER: NEW STATE GUN LAW IS A FOUNDATION FOR THE NATION
POLICE AND MILITARY TOLD TO CHOOSE: GUN CONTROL OR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY VS. CHRISTIANS
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SEEKS CONTROL OF ALL COMMERCIAL AMMUNITION
THE BIG WALL STREET BANKS ARE ABOUT TO ENTER A DEATH SPIRAL
TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT OF THE BANK, WHILE YOU STILL CAN
MICHIGAN GOVERNOR CLEARS WAY FOR STATE TAKEOVER OF DETROIT
-
THE SEQUESTER SCAM DISGUISES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PREPARATION FOR A TOTALITARIAN COUP
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 13, 2013
James Clapper, director of National Intelligence spoke to the Senate Intelligence Committee this week on the assessment that the federal budget cuts will “jeopardize our nation’s safety and security.”
Clapper says that the loss of “thousands of FBI employees” and thousands of analysts “may risk missing an early sign of an attack.”
This week Jay Carney, White House press secretary admitted that Obama’s “approach to deficit reduction is asking everyone to pay their fair share.” However Obama does not include an actual balancing of the budget, but rather a vague promise to “bring out debt to GDP below 3 percent.”
Capitol Hill is working hard on $1 trillion in new taxes. This blueprint was introduced by Senator Patty Murray, Senate Budget Committee chairwoman.
Murray claims this will quash sequestering with the promise of $100 billion in economic stimulus and job training. Over a decade, the deficit would be reduced by $800 billion based on statistics provided by the Congressional Budget Office. The US Department of Education (DoE) would be empowered to create a work force of skilled citizens that could perform a function in lieu of higher learning.
This qualifies students to technical programs that reduce critical thinking and create a generation of slaves to wage earnings and dependent of the federal government. While the White House cancelled tours due to budget cuts, many “assistants” for the Obama administration are continuing to make an estimated 6 figures with Obama advisers making over $100,000 annually.
Social programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have taken a hit from the budget cuts forcing more Americans to possibly become homeless. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the release of undocumented illegal immigrants because of the sequester cuts.
Although this is asserted as a possible threat to national security, DHS said that they had no choice based on budget cuts. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of DHS remarked: “I don’t think we can maintain the same level of security at all places around the country with sequester as without sequester.”
US veterans are being kept from grants for housing and furthering their education from the GI Bill. The US Army has cancelled their acceptance for applications regarding the Tuition Assistance program.
Other educational programs were cut by the Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. According to the Department of Labor (DoL), assistance for granting US veteran’s employment has been slashed through budget decreases. This leaves more than 10,000 veterans without access to job-training with assistance.
On March 6th, during the Senator Rand Paul filibuster distraction, The US House of Representatives have approved HR 933, the appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2013 to allocate $982 billion to the Department of Defense (DoD), Military Construction (MC), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Planned Parenthood.
The passage of this legislation “provides[s] necessary funding flexibility to ensure that our military is well-equipped, our veterans receive the care they have earned, and tax dollars are used wisely and where they are most needed.”
Hal Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said: “The House did the right thing today by passing this legislation. As we try to get our fiscal house in order, it’s important to come together on issues where we can agree – avoiding a government shutdown, providing our people with essential services, and supporting our troops and veterans. This bill sets the stage for a meaningful – and needed – discussion on how we can best address our nation’s finances. Now, I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 933 quickly and send it to the President for his signature. Congress must do its duty to ensure that our national defense remains sound at all times, and our economy continues on the path to growth and recovery.”
In the text of the bill it cites that Hagel must provide reports on active policies and procedures with regard to surveillance drone missions within the domestic US that are conducted by the Pentagon.
The bill reads: “The conferees understand that the Air Force has policies and procedures in place governing the disposition of UAV collections that may inadvertently capture matters of concern to law enforcement agencies. These policies and procedures are designed to ensure constitutional protections and proper separation between the military and law enforcement. It is unclear if other Services and Defense agencies have similar policies and procedures in place, or if these policies and procedures need to be revised or standardized. Therefore, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the policies and procedures in place across the Services and Defense agencies governing the use of such collections and to identify any additional steps that need to be taken to ensure that such policies and procedures are adequate and consistent across the Department of Defense.”
-
$1 TRILLION APPROVED BY HOUSE TO FUND THE TYRANNICAL TAKEOVER OF AMERICA
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 11, 2013
The US House of Representatives have approved HR 933 , the appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2013 to allocate $982 billion to the Department of Defense (DoD), Military Construction (MC), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Planned Parenthood.
The passage of this legislation “provides[s] necessary funding flexibility to ensure that our military is well-equipped, our veterans receive the care they have earned, and tax dollars are used wisely and where they are most needed.”
Hal Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said: “The House did the right thing today by passing this legislation. As we try to get our fiscal house in order, it’s important to come together on issues where we can agree – avoiding a government shutdown, providing our people with essential services, and supporting our troops and veterans. This bill sets the stage for a meaningful – and needed – discussion on how we can best address our nation’s finances. Now, I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 933 quickly and send it to the President for his signature. Congress must do its duty to ensure that our national defense remains sound at all times, and our economy continues on the path to growth and recovery.”
Inside the bill a provision that the DoD divulge information about the classified drone surveillance program and is seeking answers to questions from the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
In the text of the bill cites that Hagel must provide reports on active policies and procedures with regard to surveillance drone missions within the domestic US that are conducted by the Pentagon.
The bill reads: “The conferees understand that the Air Force has policies and procedures in place governing the disposition of UAV collections that may inadvertently capture matters of concern to law enforcement agencies. These policies and procedures are designed to ensure constitutional protections and proper separation between the military and law enforcement,” begins the measure. “However, it is unclear if other Services and Defense agencies have similar policies and procedures in place, or if these policies and procedures need to be revised or standardized. Therefore, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the policies and procedures in place across the Services and Defense agencies governing the use of such collections and to identify any additional steps that need to be taken to ensure that such policies and procedures are adequate and consistent across the Department of Defense.”
In 2005 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated the process of obtaining drones to be specially equipped to become encompassing surveillance tools to use against the American people.
These specific drones are used to monitor US southern and northern borders; yet are now being utilizes by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Secret Service (SS), the Texas Rangers, and local law enforcement to identify citizens carrying firearms and tracking them through cell phone use.
The very same day of the approval by House, Senator Rand Paul preformed a theatrical filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination for director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama clarify whether or not they believed Americans could be murdered by the US government using “lethal force” i.e. drones.
After the 13 hour spectacle, Paul was informed during an interview with Megan Kelly on FoxNews that Holder had written a second letter addressed to Paul. Convienently it was delivered to the FoxNews station and not Paul himself.
The letter stated that Obama does not have the right to kill unarmed and non-combative Americans on American soil.
Paul claimed a victory with this “answer”; however it is glossed over in the mainstream media that the response from Holder did not clarify who is a combatant. Based on the National Defense Authorization Act, anyone can be suspected of being a combatant by having alleged ties to a terrorist group.
Without further inquiry, Paul was suffice with Holder’s answer, yet the public is now wondering what the federal government’s definition of combatant is? Yet over the last year, and certainly most recently, it is becoming clear that enemy combatants of the federal government are Constitutionalists, Patriots, conspiracy-minded people who are anti-government and according to Holder’s letter to Paul, those persons would still be subject to targeted asssassinations using “lethal force” such as drones.
Last week the Southern Poverty Law Center published propaganda document entitled, “The Year in Hate and Extremism” was recently published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This report criticizes Patriots are a viable threat to the US government and places them in the same category as other right-wing extremists.
The report reads: “Capping four years of explosive growth sparked by the election of America’s first black president and anger over the economy, the number of conspiracy-minded antigovernment “Patriot” groups reached an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012, while the number of hard-core hate groups remained above 1,000. As President Obama enters his second term with an agenda of gun control and immigration reform, the rage on the right is likely to intensify.”
SPLC states that Patriots are convinced of a movement toward One World Government which causes them to act out in an extreme manner, organize against the current administration and recruit more citizens at an all-time high.
SPLC has redefined extremism to include the Patriot Movement as groups of Americans that believe conspiratorially that the US government will confiscate the guns, redact their 2nd Amendment rights and impose tyrannical regime controls.
According to a White House Blog website, the Obama administration is working to “counter online radicalization” by “violent extremist groups” such as “al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent ‘sovereign citizens’.”
The White House claims that “these groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment” with “resources to propagate messages of violence and division.” Through the exploitation of “popular media, music videos and online video games”, allegedly there are “countless opportunities “to draw targets into private exchanges” and provide “violent extremists with access to new audiences and instruments for radicalization.”
The US government stated they will combat these extremist groups by “raising awareness about the threat and providing communities with practical information and tools for staying safe online.” They are solidifying their relationships with private sector corporations involved in technology to implement “policies, technologies, and tools that can help counter violent extremism online.”
In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.
DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.
Countering online extremism is a task allocated to the DHS who have identified “behaviors, tactics, and other indicators that could point to potential terrorist activity.” DHS will host conferences for local police departments and federal partners to attend that will provide education on countering extremism.
Other “training initiatives” include “hundreds of thousands of front line officers” who are the ground-force infantry needed by DHS to “prevent” extremist activities.
-
OBAMA’S COUP D’ETAT IN AMERICA
by TERRY A. HURLBUT | From the Trenches World Report
January 31. 2013
Last year my fellow editor warned of a coup d’état in America. In case any reader has any doubt, Barack Obama and his allies have removed all doubt in the last several weeks. And in the process have made America ripe for rebellion. But if the right people stand up and lead, the results need not be as chaotic as one might suppose.
Coup d’état, Exhibit A: The Newtown Incident
The Newtown Incident needs no further description. Or does it? Did Adam Lanza steal three weapons, and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said Lanza might have had a Bushmaster AR-15 with him at the school, but left it in his automobile. Then they started saying something radically different, as if they had said it all along. One can imagine Winston Smith at the Ministry (Department?) of Truth rushing out a memo to them and obligingly destroying old copy. Except that it’s too late. Someone cobbled together some original footage and uploaded it to YouTube. You can play it below. (To any Department of Truth wannabes: don’t even think you can quash it now. The resistance, when it forms, will have copies.)
Speaking of media accountability: MSNBC charged yesterday that some heartless viewers “heckled” the father of one of the pupils who died at Sandy Hook, after he had the temerity to ask “who in this room needs an assault weapon.” The only problem was: he asked the question, and they answered him. (And did everyone miss the other father of a victim, who said guns were not the problem?)
Today, no one doubts that twenty pupils and eight adults died that day. What people do wonder about is: Did Adam Lanza act alone? Or did he have help? Or not so much help, as “handlers” who shot him, “threw down” their weapons next to his body, and vanished into the woods? Play the third embedded video. Listen carefully to the back-and-forth on the radio, beginning at the 3:13 mark. Police clearly describe at least two shooters. Not satisfied? Play the fourth video, which is the source of the third.
How is this relevant? Well, when you’re planning a coup d’état, and want popular support for it, you don’t wait for that support to “just happen.” You drum it up. And sometimes, if one episode does not “convince” the people, maybe several will. Why, then, do we now see at least one such gunfire episode a week beginning about a month after the Newtown Incident? Coincidence? Ian Fleming said this about coincidence:
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action.
Coup Exhibit B: Gun Control Redux
Last week, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) released her proposed “assault weapons ban” to the public. Or to be more specific, gun rights journalist David Codrea got the text and published it to Scribd.com; you may read it below.
Two problems. First, the Feinstein bill exemptsgovernment officials and their bodyguards. That’s special pleading. Second, the Feinstein bill includes handguns and shotguns. Everyone who cared to know, knew this was coming. You should also remember that in 1995, Feinstein said what she really thought of the idea ofanyone, except a law-enforcement officer or an active-duty military member, having a gun:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.
Except that she won’t turn hers in. Nor will New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bodyguards. Not that they should. But protection of their persons is not a special privilege, available to them alone.
If you’re planning a coup d’état, it helps if the people have no guns and cannot resist you.
Coup Exhibit C: DHS Buys Ammunition
Why is the Department of Homeland Security buying millions, even billions, of rounds of ammunition? The news of these massive bullet buys does not come only from “the usual suspects.” This article, going back to September 19, 2012, came from Arutz-7. From Israel. Arutz-7 pointed out a few interesting items:
- Many of these rounds are hollow-point rounds. They expand on impact.
- Many other of these rounds can go through walls.
- The Social Security Administration also bought 174,000 rounds. Why?
- The military started preparing for riots in the streets.
And then there’s this piece in Business Insider. This article discusses a continued pattern of ammo buys by DHS and other agencies. It also discusses whether the agents are shooting up all those rounds in training. Two things:
- Training for all these agents would need 15 to 20 million rounds a year. DHS is buying many more rounds than that.
- What’s happening to the spent brass? The spent brass usually goes back to the ammo maker for recycling and re-use. Not this time. Yes, the Army is destroying some of that brass (though Congress told them to stop doing that). But not all of it. Not this many rounds. Not by a long shot (pun intended).
Again, if you’re planning a coup d’état, you need to be ready to shoot a lot of people.
And in case you don’t get that point, DHS is buying 7,000 of the same weapons they don’t want the people to have. Hypocrisy? Worse than that. It’s special pleading:
Do as I say, not as I do.
Or, put another way:
Rank has its privileges.
Rank. The Constitution does not recognize such rank. But the politicians pushing gun control clearly stand on their own rank. If they’re planning a coup, you know why.
Coup Exhibit D: Loose Talk of Scrapping the Constitution
A law professor should know better. But Georgetown University Law Professor Louis M. Seidman actually said to abolish the Constitution. (Here is the source.) That, of course, would force us to re-argue the case for our rights. Well, obviously if you’re planning a coup d’état, you want to make sure that the people have no rights, except those you grant. In other words, the people’s rights are whatever you say they are, any time you say it.
Mark Levin was afraid of a Supreme Court being the sole arbiters of the Constitution. Professor Seidman would have people get used to one man making that decision.
Coup Exhibit E: Fomenting Trouble
Actor Stephen Boyd, as Marcus Valerius Messala, new Tribune and Commander of the Garrison of Jerusalem (Ben-Hur, MGM, 1959), almost dismissively tells his predecessor:
There’s always some rabble-rouser stirring up trouble.
Well, how if the government itself were stirring up trouble? The Rev. William Owens, Jr.so accuses. He said it on the Capitol steps yesterday, in answer to the 23 executive orders (for that is what de facto President Obama called them, no matter what semantic distinction anyone might care to make) that Barack Obama signed.
Oh, what a perfect excuse! When riots break out, people cry out for someone to restore order. And the government is then ready, with its billions of rounds of ammunition, and armed with the same weapons they took from the people. That’s the perfect recipe for a coup d’état.
And what is a coup d’état? It’s what happens when a group of people take over one part of the government from within, then use that part to destroy the other parts and rule alone.
Can anyone stop it?
Yes. And what’s more, the group of people best qualified to stop it, are starting to wake up to the danger. Who are these people? Your local sheriff – if he fully knows his duty under the Constitution, and at common law.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, signaled his understanding. He flatly refuses to confiscate guns. And if he has to, he will go to war with any federal agency who tries to take guns away from his fellow lawful residents.
Twenty-eight of twenty-nine sheriffs in Utah protested Obama’s executive orders and likewise vowed to stand on the Constitution.
These are only some of the 225 sheriffs who have taken a similar stand. They belong to the new Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers’ Association that Richard Mack, former Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona (and plaintiff in Printz v. US) founded. Here is the latest list. It includes Sheriff Donald Smith of Putnam County, New York – the same county that refused to cooperate with The Journal News when they were publishing gun owners’ names and addresses. (They have since taken their map down and now admitted that forty percent of the names and addresses shouldn’t have been on it!)
So if the federal government tries a coup d’état against the Constitution, they will have these 225 sheriffs to deal with. And anyone else who has guns and refuses to hand them over.
-
OBAMA’S AMERICA IS BECOMING A POLICE STATE
by Bob Russell | Conservative Daily News
April 7, 2013
Tyranny doesn’t happen over-night. It happens in a series of events that build on themselves until you wake up one morning and life as you know it is gone forever, liberty is a thing of the past. Adolph Hitler didn’t just start rounding up Jews on a whim. He spent years putting the infrastructure in place to install his totalitarian state. They had control of everything; the media, the child indoctrination centers they referred to as “public schools”, the monetary and economic structure, and national and local police departments. Hitler and his henchmen made Jews the scapegoats. Friends and neighbors soon began to hate Jews for who they were. German citizens bought into the blame game and generations of co-existence was gone in 6 years, all due to propaganda in the government controlled media and the government controlled schools.
The Aryan German people let Hitler have the Jews, and even helped him, because he was leaving them alone. Then one day he struck; swiftly, efficiently, thoroughly, and without warning! The average German citizen woke up and found the Gestapo at their door because a disagreement over a debt, or a minor insult to a neighbor or stranger led to them being denounced as traitors over a grudge. The Gestapo kicked in their door and dragged them out into the street. Some were shot dead on the spot; some were taken to prisons and tortured by sadists seeking information that didn’t exist. Most were never seen again.
This happened to your everyday, patriotic German citizens. They had gone about their lives, ignoring or accepting the things that happened over the years as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, and the rest ignored the rights of citizens and passed decrees that were “unlawful”. Unlawful to whom? Hitler didn’t see rounding up, “enemies of the state”, and shooting them as “unlawful”.
The people had seen what these men were doing but said, “it can’t happen here, we have a system of laws”. They didn’t think Hitler was a despot. He was a great leader, Der Fuhrer, who would never turn on his “Aryan” citizens. He “cares about us”. Then one day the Jews were under control and he came back for them.
When Pastor Martin Neimoller made his famous “first they came for…” quote he could have been speaking about America’s society today. Many will ridicule this video, and the whole concept of Nazi Germany, because “it can’t or it won’t happen here, we have a Constitution”. But take a look at this picture and answer the question, “when did this; become this?”. Our society in the United States of America today mirrors the society of 1936 Germany.
Hitler offered money to those who turned in their neighbors. New York City is now offering a $500 bounty for snitching on anyone possessing an “illegal weapon”. Holding a grudge against someone? Want to cause them some misery? What is happening in America today HAS happened before and we are taking the exact same path they took then. Apathy and denial are the two most dangerous states of mind in any free society.
How can people ignore or dismiss the Patriot Act, NDAA 2011 and its “indefinite detention without charge”, the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, or the explosion of local SWAT teams and the military equipment they are being given by the federal government? Policemen now kick in doors in the middle of the night dressed in black face masks and body armor head to toe. The uniforms are just that, uniform around the nation. The equipment and the tactics designed for an urban battlefield are being ”uniformly” spread to police departments and sheriff’s offices throughout the nation, and being funded with primarily federal funds. Helicopters participate in “live fire” operations using blanks, in American cities, in conjunction with local police forces. Why are they doing this? Who are they going to round up and put in the FEMA camps that were a “figment of my imagination” in 2010?
How can anyone with any amount of cognitive ability not see where both political parties are taking us? How does someone dismiss 2 billion rounds of ammunition, tens of thousands of full automatic “assault rifles”, and MRAP armored vehicles with gun ports and machine gun mounts operated by local law enforcement? What SWAT team really needs this kind of firepower? Who are they going to use this equipment against?
Both political parties refuse to secure the border and do anything about all the illegal aliens. It is very apparent that they aren’t looking to round up illegal aliens so why do we find ourselves with an internal security apparatus having so much armament? No free nation has ever had this kind of domestic military force and remained free for long. This is the SS and Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany being paraded before our very eyes yet many people deny there is any danger. It reminds me of a joke where a woman catches her husband with another woman and he asks her “are you going to believe what I tell you or your LYING EYES”?
Conspiracy Theory? At one time I thought so. By themselves many of the events over the last 10-15 years pose no “clear and present danger”, but when they are looked at with an open mind and in the view of 20th Century history it is another vision altogether. We the People are called mentally unstable and enemies of the state by the “leadership” of both political parties. Veterans who defended liberty are labeled as mentally ill by members of Congress. Some have been “detained” and had their lawfully owned firearms confiscated in a clear abuse of the Constitution.
Can’t happen here? Won’t Happen here? Don’t bet your life on it! Are you going to believe what they tell you or are you going to believe “your lying eyes”? Time is short and one morning Americans will wake up and find out their nation is in the grips of a totalitarian regime as evil as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
-
MAY DAY! COMMUNIST GOALS AS OUTLINED IN 1963 COMING TO FRUITION
Daniel Taylor
Infowars.com
May 1, 2013
On this first of May, 2013 – a day celebrated by communists in their struggle for “liberation” – it is appropriate to reflect on the communist agenda. Many of its goals have manifested systemically in the decades gone by. Whether or not you believe there is a conscious agenda behind the changes we are witnessing is irrelevant. Forget the “Communist” label for a moment and recognize these labels for what they are: Different ways of describing despicable tyrants making their move for total control. As we can see with the examples below (of which there are many more) the political and social aspects of our country have been successfully altered.
As entered into the Congressional Record of 1963:
“Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.””
– FEMA has been caught on video instructing local police that the founding fathers were America’s first terrorists.
– In 2009 a leaked Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) document listed Ron Paul and Libertarians as terrorists
– West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center lists “anti-federalists” as a terrorist group. As the document states, “They… espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights… they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government.”
“Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.”
– New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, in response to the Boston bombings, says that the U.S. Constitution will “have to change”. Of course, it is in the name of increased security.
– In December of last year, the New York Times published an article by Louis Michael Seidman, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, which proudly admonished “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” Seidman dares to blame our problems on following the constitution, which he calls “evil” and “archaic”.
– In waging the war on terror after 9/11 the Bill of Rights was an inconvenience that Bush administration officials sought to remove. President Obama has continued down the same path with the NDAA and other unconstitutional measures.
“Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.”
The prevalence of pornography in today’s society is nothing short of shocking. Its impact on society is corrosive, which is why it must be promoted if a revolutionary group wants to alter the social landscape. According to the Washington Post, 1 in 6 women are addicted to porn. In 2004 Dr. Jill Manning testified before the U.S. Senate regarding the impact of pornography on marriage in the United States. She presented statistics gathered from lawyers around the country. She found that, “56 percent of divorce cases involved one party having an obsessive interest in pornographic websites.” As Kevin Skinner writes in Psychology Today, “If half of the people divorcing claim pornography as the culprit, that means there are 500,000 marriages annually that are failing due to pornography.”
“Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.”
The Cloward–Piven strategy is going full force under the Obama administration. This socialist strategy, developed in 1966 by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, sought to push welfare on the masses in order to create division and economic crisis. A program of “wealth redistribution” is then presented as a solution. Under Obama, welfare is at an all time high. From 2007 to 2011 the number of food stamp recipients rose 70% to 45 million. A 1966 article published in the The Nation outlined the plan,
“A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates… These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor… a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.”
Regardless of its political label, tyranny is rising in the United States of America. It is the responsibility of every upstanding citizen to denounce it and work to restore the values and liberty loving spirit that sustained our ancestors.
-
THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: 45 DECLARED GOALS
From Greg Swank
You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so.
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
-
ARE AMERICANS PRACTICING COMMUNISM?
ARE Americans practicing Communism? This has ALWAYS been their Plan.
Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…
Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.
Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.
Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!
The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920′s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.
Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????
The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America… KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.
-
HOW COMMUNISM IDEOLOGY HAS SHAPED AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE ON GUN OWNERSHIP
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 16, 2013
In 1963, the Communist Goals were introduced into the Congressional Record under Appendix, pp. A34-A35.
Albert Herlong, House Representative from Florida, brought the “Current Communist Goals” that are outlined by Cleon Skousen in the book entitled “The Naked Communist”.
The 45 goals that were supposed in Congressional presentation by Herlong have either come to pass or in the process of being implemented. Without the knowledge of the American public, these ideals were introduced to our US government to alter the perspective of our Constitutional Republic to incrementally turn the tide from freedom to Communism.
The difference between Socialism and Communism is: “Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or ‘higher stage’ of socialism.”
The transition stage we are seeing from Constitutional Republic to Socialism is leading us to a Communist dictatorship.
In respect to gun-control, number 42 states: “Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.”
In Indiana, Dan DeHaven, the Lake Station Schools Superintendent, stated that a teacher at Edison Junior-Senior High School was suspended for writing a message to his students on the chalkboard.
The message read: “A) You are idiots!!!!!!!! B) The guns are loaded!!! C) Care to try me ?????????”
Students took pictures of the message with their cell phones and alerted school staff members.
DeHaven explained that he will be speaking to the local police about the incident because “we take this situation very seriously; safety is very serious to us.”
In other over-reactions concerning gun control, a 7 year old child was suspended for allegedly shaping a Pop-Tart in a gun and saying “Bang, Bang!”
The school suspended the boy for two days, supporting the teacher’s contention that this was a threatening situation. The school maintained in a letter to the boy’s parents that: “A student used food to make an inappropriate gesture.”
Fort Myers, Florida was the scene of a brave teenager who took a gun from a classmate on a school bus who aimed the firearm “point blank” with the intent to shoot.
Although the teenager wrestled the weapon from his classmate, he was later suspended from school for being involved in an incident involving a gun. This suspension will remain indefinite until the results of an investigation can be finalized.
In the spirit of making our country safer, two schools in the Bronx, New York were put on lockdown after a student reported that another student may have a gun on the school premises. When the gun was located; it turned out to be a Nerf gun that fires foam darts. The lockdown lasted for hours.
Parents who came to retrieve their children were delayed because of the over-reaction of school officials.
Another instance of over-reaction occurred when a 5 year old was sent home from school for building a LEGO gun. The boy was actually suspended from school and sent home with a letter from Hyannis West Elementary School officials that explained to the parents that their son had built a “gun” during a stay at the after-school program.
The parent immediately recognized the insanity of the situation. The father remarked: “It’s not like he’s designing a machine gun.”
Gun control debates have included the idea that mental illness plays a big part as those who are diagnosed with a mental disorder can become violent without notice toward themselves or others. It is the public contention that such individuals must be stopped from ever being able to legally own a firearm.
A study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. William Cooper, pediatrics and preventive medicine professor at Vanderbilt University, claims that Ritalin and Adderall (two pharmaceutical drugs used to treat ADHD) can prevent the mind of hyperactive children from becoming criminals. Cooper contends that these drugs should continue to be administered through adulthood to prevent criminal activity later in life.
Cooper said: “There definitely is a perception that it’s a disease of childhood and you outgrow your need for medicines. We’re beginning to understand that ADHD is a condition for many people that really lasts throughout their life.”
The findings of the study showed:
• Thirty – seven percent of convicts were pre – diagnosed with ADHD
• It was likely that ADHD medication was used in 32% of male convicts and 41% of female
• ADHD suffers were likely to commit burglary or theft
• Four thousand of the 23,000 crimes researched were violent
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), ADHD is treated with stimulants such as Methylphenidate (Ritalin, Metadate, Concerta, Daytrana), Amphetamine (Adderall), or Dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine, Dextrostat). These drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for children as young as 6 years old.
The accepted treatment of ADHD has a list of dangerous side effects such as:
• Being anti – social or withdrawn
• Feeling hopeless, worthless
• Extreme suicidal thoughts
• Panic attacks
• Insomnia
• Aggressive and/or violent behavior
• Sudden changes in mood/behavior
The Karolinska Institute is one of the leading pharmacological research institutions that clarify the field of clinical medicine with the push of the use of drugs to treat physiological and psychological issues. Thirty percent of medicinal training and 40% of medical academic research is conducted at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and all lectures are translated into English and taught in universities in the US.
Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Children’s Medical Center, confirms through past research that adults who were diagnosed with ADHD as children are more likely to:
• Get into driving accidents
• Consistently lose jobs
• Divorce spouses
• Be arrested or commit some criminal activity
Adesman admits that not all children marked as ADHD go on to become criminals or divorcees, and that the majority of them simply grow out of the behavior. Yet, Adesman still maintains that despite the fact that ADHD is a phase of childhood that rarely carries into adulthood that “collectively, people with ADHD are at risk for a range of poor outcomes.”
-
THE TAKEDOWN OF AMERICA
By Kris Zane | Western Journalism
A dark, oppressive cloud hovering over America.
We are in the throes of the worst terrorist attack since 9/11. Poison-laced letters are making their way through the mail. Bomb threats are now a daily occurrence. Boston is being managed like a war zone, with other cities quickly falling in line.
With all of this going on, Barack Hussein Obama stood in the Rose Garden yesterday and threw what can only be described as a temper tantrum.
He didn’t get his way—universal background checks for all gun sales—and proceeded to threaten and cajole America for daring to engage in the democratic process.
If it would have been any other day in America, we would have chocked it up to a normal occurrence in the Obama administration.
But it was not a normal day. And there won’t be a normal day for a while.
How could Barack Obama stamp his foot and shake his fist in the midst of a crisis for something that a recent poll said about 4% of the public thinks is important? It doesn’t make sense. It is like something out of a Twilight Zone episode.
It only makes sense if the something that is eaten away at this country, oppressing us, and poisoning us like a toxic cloud, is Barack Hussein Obama.
North Korea is threatening nuclear war, the Middle East is slowly being taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood (who we happen to be in bed with), and our economy is on the verge of collapse as we approach a $20 trillion national debt.
And what is Barack Hussein Obama doing? Playing golf. On another vacation. Hosting a star-studded, multi-million dollar “soul music” celebration and throwing tempter tantrums.
It doesn’t make sense.
It only makes sense if the something that is eating away at this country is in fact Barack Hussein Obama.
And that is exactly what is happening.
It is time to accept the truth, however hard to swallow as Americans, that Barack Hussein Obama’s goal is to destroy the United States of America.
Go ahead, let everyone cry “conspiracy theorist” until hell freezes over. There is no other explanation.
Obama has turned America into a police state, with TSA agents’ presence expanding by the day.
Cameras peek into every nook and cranny of public space.
Bush’s Patriot Act has been discarded for something completely new: simply spy on everyone and everything.
The Utah Data Center in Bluffdale, built by an army of 10,000 construction workers and due to open in September, will be the biggest spy center in the world. The one million square foot facility is so massive that it can store every single electronic communication for the next 100 years—and still have room to spare.
What exactly will the Utah Data Center be storing? Emails. Telephone calls. Tweets. Facebook posts. Travel records. Credit card transactions. Bank records. Stock market trades. Google searches. In a word: everything. Oh, and by the way, this will all be done without a warrant, without a subpoena, and without any due process at all.
And this is just the beginning. What good is a surveillance state unless you have a totalitarian government to operate it? And all totalitarian governments require some type of crisis to usher in the supposed saviors. For Hitler, it was hyperinflation, with the Reichstag fire as the cherry on top. With Obama, it will be the collapse of the dollar followed by total economic collapse.
Conspiracy theory?
According to a highly-placed source in the intelligence community, as reported in the widely read article “Intelligence Insider: Obama Administration Agenda to Kill U.S Dollar,” this is exactly what Obama is planning. The first thing to go will be the stock market, falling free fall, losing 95% of its value. Next, Obama will kill the dollar. Last but not least, the U.S. economy will be buried in a shallow grave in an act of Obamanation.
Progressives, wake up. Republicans, open your eyes. Obama’s no moderate, no liberal, and no Democrat. He’s a globalist, through in through.
The intelligence insider goes on to say that after the collapse of the stock market, the dollar, and finally the entire U.S. economy—long after the European Union has collapsed—a call for a world currency and world government will be shouted from the highest globalist mountains, supposedly to avert another worldwide economic crisis—no doubt with Barry Obama as the Pied Piper leading us into destruction.
America will become only a dim memory.
Want to know what America—or what is left of America—will look like under a continued Obama presidency?
Remember how the Left cheered when their hero Senator Obama vowed to close Gitmo? When their Messiah won the presidency, he not only didn’t close Gitmo but put the terrorists’ trials in indefinite limbo.
According to a prisoner’s statement smuggled out on April 14:
I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial.
Yes, there’s trouble in paradise. Gitmo is a model of what America will become under Obama’s second term. Prepare for indefinite detention. Prepare for a total surveillance society. And prepare for a New World Order.
America is dying. Welcome to Obama’s fundamental transformation of America.
-
-
AMERICA: A NATION OF SHEEP BEING LED TO SLAUGHTER?
by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com
America is coming to a nexus point in our history. America has already entered the second of three stages on the path to revolution. I emphatically have called for nonviolent resistance against the bankers who have hijacked our government. However, I also provided a caveat which clearly stated that if the globalists initiate a major false flag operation, or a series of false flag operations as an excuse to roll out martial law, we should not militarily resist.
However, if the roll out of martial law includes the beginnings of numerous roundups, mass detainments without due process of law and eventual exterminations, the people will have no choice but to resist.
There is no question that America is headed down the path toward revolution. A war might temporarily forestall the possibility of enacting genocidal policies towards the American people which would could accompany a complete takeover of our country. However, it is prudent, at this point, to assess the threat.
Three Possible Outcomes Resulting From the Coming Tyranny
The first possible outcome resulting from the impending collapse of the Petrodollar could lead to a Federal Reserve led war against Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and India.
The second outcome could include a “soft” form of martial law in which life would not be much different that it is today. As long as people do not resist the imposition of fully visible banker controlled government, they could be relatively safe and my admonitions regarding buying local, banking with in state-owned and small banks as well as engaging in unregulated bartering and trading as much as possible could constitute passive, yet effective forms of resistance.
The third possible outcome would result in the establishment of a brutal form of martial law resulting in mass detentions in concentration camps and widespread exterminations.
This article examines the evidence supporting the fact that the present administration is preparing to enact their own version of martial law that will result in the detention and widespread extermination of millions of American citizens.
Is An American Holocaust Around the Corner?
If one seeks the answer to this question, one should always look to history first. Humans are creatures of habit, and we reflexively follow what we have been taught or conditioned to accept as the norm.
Every Genocide Has Three Requirements.
1. A totalitarian government must be so entrenched that any individual liberties must be eviscerated
2. The nation’s legal structure must support and even facilitate the abuse of its suspected dissidents.
3. The paramilitary infrastructure must be constructed prior to facilitating the carrying out of the holocaust.
In this spirit we must realize that every act of civil disobedience, every act of revolution and every act of tyrannical genocide committed by a government, requires a trigger event. And the trigger event usually comes in the form of a false flag event.
For the Nazis, this trigger event included burning down the Reichstag and blaming the Communists as an excuse to declare martial law. What will be the trigger event for a possible genocidal holocaust committed against American citizens? No one can say for sure. However, when one seeks the answer, on should always look to history first. I would say that the government will first line up its legal mechanisms against the private ownership of guns. The government needs to remove as much of the opposition as possible and gun confiscation is always a catalyst on the road to genocide.
The incremental plan to seize American guns is clearly underway and it should scare the hell out of all Americans because in the 20th century, there were 17 major genocides committed against civilian populations resulting in a death toll of around 260 million people. Everyone of these genocides was preceded by gun confiscation which rendered the intended victims defenseless against the slaughter that awaited them. Can there be any doubt in that governments, in general, are the biggest threat to longevity on the planet? Subsequently, when the government is ready to completely seize our guns, they will be in need of a false flag event, so horrific, so catastrophic, that the American people will be afraid to speak in defense of Second Amendment rights. The leading candidates for a false flag attack of this magnitude would a potential mass attack on a major sporting event (e.g. Super Bowl). The detonation of a nuclear device designed to frame a patriot group, such as a Second Amendment supporting advocacy group. Of course, there is the persistent Operation Bluebeam theory as well. In actuality, there is no shortage of convenient false flag targets, therefore, it is difficult to accurately know the target ahead of time. Rest assured, that the target(s) have already been selected by the globalists and the plans to carry out this false flag event are already in place.
If you are looking for a reliable sign from which to gauge when the globalists are going to make their final move, you should be looking for the most reliable historical indicators. This would be a false flag attack followed by the government totally disarming the public. When these two events happen in close proximity to each other, it is time to run for the hills, both literally and figuratively.
The Legal Infrastructure of Genocide
The legal infrastructure is in place which gives the government means from which to begin to carry out either a general genocide or simply to targets specific groups for elimination.
The following legal acts by the government represents a blueprint for the roll out of total tyranny. There are, no doubt, some people who are reading this article and will no doubt be thinking that America will never experience a modern day holocaust. I understand your skepticism.Therefore, it is important that all readers of this multi-part series do their own research and form their own conclusions. Below, I have provided links to what I call the Legal Infrastructure of Tyranny.
Each of the following acts contain a hypertext link to a legal interpretation of the act. If you are having any doubts about what has been said in this article and its three previous companion parts, then I DARE you to research the following and tell me that you are not now an enemy of the state and that to do nothing is to acquiesce to your own sealed fate.
The Legal Infrastructure of a Genocidal Government
The National Defense Authorization Act
Quantitative Easing or printing the U.S. Dollar until it no longer has any value
Here is another take on the NDAA, the most egregious piece of legislation ever perpetrated against the American people by its government.
-
-
Has anyone ever bothered to ask this illegitimate government the following questions?
1. Why did TruTV ban replays of Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory’s airing of the FEMA Camp report?
2. Why was the MIAC report written by DHS?
3. Why does Obama continue to use false flag events as a pretext to seize our guns?
STOP! If you have not done your research on the five genocidal legislative acts listed above, then you are wasting your time moving on to the next part of the article because the contents will not make any sense. If you have the courage to face the truth, take a moment and review these five acts, now.
If you are convinced that Americas are in a great deal of danger as a result of these acts, read them again, memorize them, so you can quote chapter and verse to your neighbors and then present them with the same challenges that I have presented to you. The facts are unmistakable, that if the globalists so choose, America is headed down the path to its own modern day holocaust as the legal infrastructure is in place.
Tyranny Has Its Own Unique Infrastructure
The greatest threat to a totalitarian regime are people like you and I who will not go along with the tyranny. Now that you have read and studied the Legal Infrastructure of Genocide, it should be clear that every word you that you electronically speak and write is recorded. Many of us the alternative media have been told, on a consistent basis, that a threat matrix score has been complied on every citizen based upon the massive data mining that has taken place on every American citizen since 9/11. Some insider sources also indicate that an assassinations list has also been constructed and will be acted upon when martial law is rolled out. If you are one on of the fortunate ones that has not caught the ire of the electronic surveillance mechanisms in America, you may still have a dossier which requires you to be incarcerated for the good of the country and in the interest of national security.
Housing Dissidents With Dangerous Ideas
All totalitarian regimes must have a place to house targeted groups and potential dissidents until the last societal remnants of protest are removed. It worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao and now the same plan is being put together by Obama.
The construction and staffing of FEMA Camps, is now fully admitted by the mainstream media. KBR’s complicity in the construction of these camps, as well as the activation and staffing of these Bill Ayers type of re-education camps, has been fully acknowledged. Do you know where Hitler got the idea for concentration camps? Surprisingly, he got the idea from the unqualified subjugation of Native Americans into reservations. Life can be ironic because the concept concentration camps is on the verge of coming full circle.
Citizen Dehumanization and Travel Restrictions
It worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao and now the same plan is being put together by Obama. The last thing a fascist dictatorship wants to permit is the unsanctioned gathering of dissident people. When two or more dissidents gather, revolution may be on their minds. Therefore travel must be tightly controlled.
There is a byproduct benefit to controlling travel, citizens can also be conditioned that they are the property of the state. Not only do the TSA perverts commit felonies against our flying public every day, as these pot-bellied perverts grope our mothers and our children, they are in the midst of rolling out a far-reaching VIPER program which would make Hitler’s Gestapo jealous. In the near future, if you want to travel on the street, go to a mall, attend a sporting event, enter a school, attend the prom, board a bus or a train or travel from one city to another on the highway, you will be subjected to the same TSA felonious and invasive search protocols in the pursuit of any of the aforementioned activities.
This is all part of the conditioning process in which the average citizen is being programmed to accept that it is the government that is the sovereign, not the people, and your body does not belong to you or your God, you are the unqualified property of the state.
The Rise of Unsanctioned Paramilitary Forces
It worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao and now the same plan is being put together by Obama. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama promised the rise of American Brown Shirts as he stated, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
-
-
Obama has now authorized DHS to use paramilitary organizations to enforce the coming Obama version of martial law. And of course, there are the omnipresent, voter intimidation thugs of Obama’s ACORN. With the purchase of 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition to with 2700+ armored vehicles, it is clear that DHS is the army of the central bankers.
Obama has now authorized DHS to use paramilitary organizations to enforce the coming Obama version of martial law. And of course, there are the omnipresent, voter intimidation thugs of Obama’s ACORN, and of course, there is the omnipresent Blackwater.
Can’t We Find A Political Solution?
Psychologist Martha Stout , faculty member in psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, estimates in her book, The Sociopath Next Door, that as many as 4% of the population are conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or feelings of remorse with regard to the suffering caused by their inhumane acts. Political figures have double the rates of sociopathic behavior of the general population. And Wall street financiers may possess sociopathic rates which are three times that of politicians! Does anyone really think we are going to find justice from people such as these?
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was merely to assess whether the Obama administration has the infrastructure needed to carry out genocide against the American people. The facts demonstrate that there exists the legal, political and paramilitary forces needed to carry a holocaust. This is why the American people must NEVER surrender their guns under any circumstances. The only missing element needed to begin to carry out genocide under a martial law crackdown is present except for the fact that American citizens are still armed.
-
AMERICA STANDS AT THE PRECIPICE OF BRUTAL MARTIAL LAW
by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com
The contents of this article are controversial and the potential consequences are frightening. I did not rely on only source of information to bring this information to the attention of the public. Personally known, but unnamed ex-intelligence sources, who have previously proven the veracity of their knowledge and trustworthiness were the original bearers of this information. Second, a known and highly respectable source will be cited as the second source. However, the best source of the following information is the undisputed paper trail of government documents, legislative actions and Executive Orders are the third and the most reliable source of this information.
Credibility of Sources
I have been approached by the proverbial unnamed sources who are personally known to me, over the past week, in order to use me as a mouthpiece to spread the word to as many as possible, that the globalists are going for broke and are moving to destroy and enslave all nations, but none will be subjugated with the furor that is the United States because our country is the biggest threat to their plans of world domination.
I would never expect anyone to accept the unquestioned word unnamed sources. However, the use of unnamed sources can point us in directions which serve to validate their warnings to the American people if there statements can be backed up by other means. Subsequently, I will be being relying on a named source, who partially validates the claims put forth in this article. In addition, I have searched for a correlation between what I have been told and what I can find in government documents which would point to the validity of the scenario which will be laid out here in this article. I am shocked at how easy it was to cross-validate the globalist intentions through a cursory examination of government documents.
Source #1: Unnamed Former Intelligence Sources
Cutting right to the chase, the globalists have commenced their reign of terror. I was told last October by these same sources that false flag attacks were being planned. I was further told that several more false flag attacks are planned, in “Battle Ground America” in the same time frame, because it makes hard for the public to see the correct tree in a dense forest of possibilities.
Please note that it is confirmed that the government is planning three anti-terrorist drills in major cities in the next 24 days. Additionally, the New York subway system will have “harmless gas” released in a simulated chemical weapons attack. Hard to know which one, if any of these, will a false flag attack in the making. In fact, I have been told that it is standard operating procedure that the globalists have multiple plans on the same day, and execute the most opportune.
I have been told that following the attack in Boston, the next wave of false flag attacks will consist of chemical and biological attacks along with another school shooting. The trump card will be a tactical nuclear weapon. Who will get the blame? There are two targets of opportunity, namely, Syria and/or Iran. These attacks will provide the excuse for martial law (for our protection of course) and the pretext to launch a war to defend the Petrodollar.
What Will It Be Like to Live Under Martial Law?
My former intelligence sources state that the internet will be taken down immediately as the globalists see it as an opportunity to galvanize the masses against the criminals who will subjugating the country. All bank accounts, pension funds and 401K’s will be frozen and stolen. Extreme travel restrictions will be put in place. Random house to house searches will be conducted. What will they be looking for? Of course, they will be looking for guns and the false flag events will give them the pretext to do so. And they will also be looking for known trouble makers.
Who Will He Be Aiming At Tomorrow?
Look at the Youtube videos of Boston martial law and you will have a great idea of why the Boston event went down the way that it did.
My sources report that many of the rounded up people will be sent to re-education camps, if not outright executed. Also, food will be rationed, the use of utilities will be limited to certain times of day. Searches of homes in which the authorities will be looking for food and water supplies will be conducted and violators will have their products seized and they will be arrested. People will be given food ration cards similar to WWII. The anticipated propaganda to sell this to the public will be that it is for the war effort. Shopping malls, stadiums and other public venues will be the gathering site for people who are hungry or are seeking safe refuge. However, these centers carry the risk of being random extermination centers and a prelude to stack and pack living conditions forced upon them by the authorities. There will be a draft, both for the military and civilian work brigades. In other words, all people will become the unquestionable property of the state. All major corporations and natural resources will be nationalized under the direction of DHS and under Executive Order. If these mandates are fully implemented, we will be living in hell on earth. Is there any collaborating information and/or data which could serve to bring credibility to these reports? Read on, the confirmations will be undeniable.
#2 Source: My Recent Conversation With Pastor Lindsay Williams
Late last week, I responded to an email request made by Pastor Williams to appear on my talk show to share some startling details of what he has been told is coming by some of his global elite friends. Lindsay related to me that the dollar could be collapsed as early as the end of the year and martial law will be imposed. The world’s economy is going to fail and what he described to me reminded me of the story line of the NBC hit series, Revolution, in which America disintegrates into a series of feudal societies all struggling against each other in a fight to the death scenario. To paraphrase what Pastor Williams told me, I would summarize his message by saying that the people in charge will control everything.
The next and obvious question is if there is any confirming written proof of what my ex-intelligence sources and Pastor Williams are stating?
#3 Source: The Government Documents Which Validate the “Speculation”
There is a trail of governmental paperwork which confirms what many in high places are beginning to leak out. Further government documents are quite clear on these points. Further, I think the country should be asking why are so many prominent bankers leaving America? I first became aware of this fact as Jim Marrs revealed this fact on my show, last fall.
Read further, the motivation for departing banksters should become apparent.
Why Impose Martial Law This Soon?
Why is the move to lock down America proceeding with such rapidity? Simple, too many of us have awakened to the tyranny that is unfolding. False flag events come and go and an increasing number of people are seeing right through games being played, such as planning terrorist training drills which coincide with a major false flag operation.
When the Oklahoma City bombing happened, the country reacted with horror. When 3,000 people were killed on 9/11, more people started asking questions. When the London and Madrid bombings took place, a few of us noticed the coincidence of terrorist training drills and the actual event. When the latest “terrorist bombing” took place in Boston, the “koolaid drinking CNN believers” are in the clear minority, for we have the globalist playbook and have caught on to their old familiar script and as a result we no longer believe their lies.
Late last year, I detailed how former intelligence operatives were bugging out to seek a safe haven in prepared getaways from the calamities that the globalists were enacting with the intent of seizing total control of the country through martial law which would be followed by a series of false flag attacks.These are the same two people who have temporarily broken their silence to bring me the first set of information offered in the first part of this article.
The Boston Marathon bombing shook them up and they claim that this is the opening salvo in this subjugation of the American people. The martial law situation in Boston was the beta test for everything from gun confiscation to the arresting of dissidents (i.e. anyone who disagrees with this criminal administration).
Based upon what these for intelligence types were telling me, I have been calling for a false flag event to begin the tipping point of the coming tyranny. The Boston bombing is the trigger event. Make no mistake about it, we are going to war to protect the endangered Petrodollar. And martial law will be simultaneously ushered in after a series of false flag events.
Dissidents Will Be Removed or Worse
The NDAA has provided this criminal administration with all the “authority” to secretly arrest and even murder dissidents without a trial. The NDAA can be viewed as nothing but an East German Stasi enforcement mechanism which did the same in the hell that was East Germany. Thus, the claims of the intelligence sources about removing dissidents for “re-education or worse” is now within the grasp of this administration
Food As a Weapon
One of the items I view as credible from my intelligence sources is that the government will use food to control the population.
Even Ray Charles could see that Obama is setting the table to take his place among Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro and Mao as another despot in the long line of tyrannical leaders who would grant themselves the authority to subjugate the masses by using food as a weapon. Americans desperately need to look at history in order to understand what happens every time the people of a government allows the government to control its food supplies and farms.
In hindsight, I have often wondered how prophetic was Obama’s campaign speech when he promised to fundamentally transform America? This was actually one campaign promise that Obama is trying to keep. NSSM 200 has come full circle, but in this case, it is specifically aimed at the American people. History show us that Socialists, Communists, Islamists and Marxists, use food and the production of food as a weapon against their own people in order to solidify power and control. We could soon be seeing the same thing.
I venture to say that most individuals who get their “news” from the mainstream media would hold fast to the belief that the benevolent U.S. government would never use food as a weapon against the American people. Someone should remind these “sheeple” that this is the same U.S. government which has been caught shipping drugs into Mexico under Operation Fast and Furious which has resulted in the deaths of a half dozen U.S. law enforcement officials. Yes, this is the same government which has turned a blind eye to HSBC bank setting up fictitious bank accounts in order to launder money derived from the profits of drug trafficking and running guns and then turning around and sending this money to fund various terrorist organizations. Yes, this is the same government which permits the Federal Reserve to send trillions of American dollars in order to bail out their own personal banking interests in Europe. Yes, this is the same U.S. government , through the TSA, which commits second degree sexual assault on airline travelers under the guise of protecting Americans from the very terrorists that they are complicit in funding through organizations such as the HSBC bank. Therefore, it is prudent to ask the question, would the United States use food a tool of governmental policy in order to control its population? Unfortunately, this question has already been answered in the affirmative.
Further, the use of food by the U.S. government has been a matter of official U.S. governmental covert policy since 1974-1975.In December, 1974, National Security Council directed by Henry Kissinger completed a classified study entitled, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study was based upon the unproven claims that population growth in Lesser Developed Countries (LDC) constituted a serious risk to America’s national security.
In November 1975 President Ford, based upon the tenets of NSSM 200 outlined a classified plan to forcibly reduce population growth in LDC countries through birth control, war and famine. Ford’s new national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in conjunction with CIA Director, George H. W. Bush, were tasked with implementing the plan and the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture assisted in the implementation of these insane genocidal plans.
NSSM 200 formally raised the question, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Kissinger has answered these questions when he stated that he was predicting a series of contrived famines, created by mandatory programs and this would make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary in this modern day application of eugenics in a scheme that would allow Henry to have his cake and eat it too in that the world would finally be rid of the “useless eaters!”
Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order (EO), National Defense Resources Preparedness is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended target are not the LDC’s but, instead, the American people.
With the stroke of his pen, Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his Executive Order states:
e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”
This unconstitutional Executive Order is particularly disturbing in that it clearly states that the government has control over anything that is “capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…” If you thought that you and Fido were going to get through coming food crisis by storing and consuming dog food, think again.
How will farmers maintain the nation’s food supply when all fertilizer, their farm equipment and all of their vehicles are under the control of this sociopathic President or the next power-hungry President?
The term “all food storage facilities” includes your refrigerator, your pantry and even the very food in your cabinets as well as what is on your kitchen table. In short, anywhere you keep food is now under the control of the government and can be redistributed.
Have you recently been scratching your head in bewilderment as you watch on the news as the Amish have had their farms raided, raw milk producers have been jailed and the kids running lemonade stands have been shut down and ticketed? Now you know why these abuses are being perpetrated by the government in that it represents a mere conditioning process designed to get all U.S. citizens used to the idea that the government owns all food and food production.
The most clever aspect of this Executive Order is that no Hegelian Dialectic (i.e., false flag event) is needed as a pretense to seize food and imperil survivability. Section 201(b) of the Obama EO clearly states that this EO is enforceable under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.”
The warning issued by the unnamed intelligence sources certainly seems more credible given these set of circumstances.
Through the National Defense Preparedness Act, Obama is following in the footsteps of Hitler and Stalin and we should all be worried, very worried.
More Executive Orders Validating the Ex-Intel Claims
The paper trail not only points to what is coming, the evidence is overwhelming. We are headed for an Orwellian nightmare like no dictator has ever been able to impose on any country at any time in world history. Here is a partial list of Obama’s Executive Orders along with a brief description.
Government Control Over All Fuel and Transportation
Executive Order 10990
Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.
Executive Order 11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
Executive Order 11005
Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
Executive Order 10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
Government Control Over All Food and Water
Executive Order 10998
Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms
The Ability to Enslave the American People
Executive Order 11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Executive Order 11001
Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
Executive Order 11002
Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.
Executive Order 11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
Ability to Grant the President Total Dictatorial Control
Executive Order 11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
Executive Order 11310
Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Executive Order 11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
Intentions or Games?
The correlations between the ex-intelligence sources, Pastor Williams and the government paper trail appears strong. However, one should ask themselves a question. Are these acts merely the product of a set of politicians having too much time on their hands? If the government was not planning on a complete martial law shut down to accompany the coming WWIII, then what are all these laws and Executive Orders about? For myself, I have concluded that we in the patriotic dissident crowd are in a great deal of danger. I would never ask anyone to act based upon my writings. However, I hope I have encouraged many of you to do your own research and form your own best conclusions and course of action for you and your family.
Final Thoughts
Still Not Convinced? Then why did DHS purchase 2.2 billion rounds of hollow point bullets? Who do they plan on shooting?
Why Is DHS Practicing Shooting At These Targets?
Who are these coffins for?
-
EXCLUSIVE: GOVERNMENT ACTIVATING FEMA CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Infowars.com has received a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements,” the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to us by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.
Internment Camp Services Bid Arrives After NDAA
KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrives soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.
Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.
A number of civil liberties groups have come out in strong opposition to the legislation, most notably the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the nation’s oldest and largest Asian American civil and human rights organization.
In a letter addressed to Congress, S. Floyd Mori, the national director of JACL, said the NDAA is the first time that Congress has scaled back on the protections provided by the Non-Detention Act of 1971. Mori said the legislation, if enacted and put into use, would be reminiscent of the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.
KBR Instrumental in Establishing Camps in 2006
In 2006, KBR was awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security, allegedly to support its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency, Market Watch reported.
The contract was effective immediately and provided for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company explained.
The regions indicated in the KBR document.
Army Releases Civilian Inmate Labor Program Document
Soon after KBR’s announcement, a little-known Army document surfaced. Entitled the“Civilian Inmate Labor Program,” the unclassified document describes in detail Army Regulation 210-35. The regulation, first drafted in 1997, underwent a “rapid act revision” in January 2005 and now provides a policy for the creation of labor programs and prison camps on Army installations.
National Emergency Centers Act
In 2009, the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 was introduced in Congress. It mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.
In addition to emergencies, the legislation is designed to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse, as Paul Joseph Watson noted in January of 2009.
Also in 2009, the Army National Guard began posting advertisements calling forInternment/Resettlement Specialists, a fact noted by Infowars.com, Prison Planet.com and other alternative media outlets but ignored by the establishment media.
Precursor: Rex 84 Mass Detention Operation
Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.
During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”
Rex 84 was devised by Col. Oliver North, who was with the NSC and appointed liaison to FEMA. John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of “national preparedness” programs for FEMA, and North designed the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million “American Negroes” in the event of a black militant uprising in the United States.
DHS Coordinating Occupy Arrests
Following a crackdown by police on Occupy Wall Street protesters around the nation, Oakland, California, mayor Jean Quan mentioned during an interview with the BBC that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. It was later discovered that the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal police agencies had coordinated the often violent response to the protests.
New York Rep. Peter King, who heads up the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, signaled a sense of urgency when he said the federal government has “to be careful not to allow this movement to get any legitimacy. I’m taking this seriously in that I’m old enough to remember what happened in the 1960′s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen.”
The federal government responded similarly in the 1960s and 70s when the FBI organized and unleashed its unconstitutional secret police under the covert banner of COINTELPRO.
In addition to the DHS characterizing Americans supporting states’ rights and the Constitution as terrorists, the Defense Department’s Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course in 2009 advised its personnel that political protest amounts to “low-level terrorism.”
Elements of the Police State Coming Together
The KBR document is more evidence that the federal government has established internment camps and plans to fill them with dissidents and anti-government activists that have been demonized consistently by the establishment media.
The NDAA was crafted precisely to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up activists it conflates with al-Qaeda terrorists. The plan was initially envisioned by Rex 84 and in particular Operation Garden Plot, an operational plan to use the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. in direct support of civil disturbance control operations. It has since added numerous elements under the rubric of Continuity of Government, the overall war on terror, civil disturbance and emergency response.
The government has patiently put into place the crucial elements of its police state grid and overarching plan for the internment of political enemies.
We are quite literally one terror event away from the plan going live. As the DHS and the establishment media keep telling us, the next terror event will be on American soil and not the work of al-Qaeda but domestic patriot political groups. The FBI has specialized in creating domestic terrorists – or rather patsies – and shifting the blame over to their political enemies.
-
JESSE VENTURA: FEMA CAMPS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE USED TO DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZENS
-
-
The U.S. Jails More People Than Any Other Country. The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate, with Department of Justice data showing more than 2.2 million people are behind bars, equal to a city the size of Houston. Read more here-http://bloom.bg/Td1m9I
-
THE EIGHT UNFOLDING STAGES OF THE GREAT AMERICAN GENOCIDE
by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com
May 7, 2013
Is America following down a path which could culminate in the government carrying out acts of genocide against select members of its population? There is increasing internet “chatter” which addresses this topic and many are beginning to discuss the possibility for the first time. I began to wonder the same and began to actually research the patterns of genocide in an attempt to determine if America is in trouble.
The fundamental research question associated with this paper is as follows. “Is the United States moving down a predictable path towards genocide based upon Stanton’s thesis.”
Brief Summary of the Stanton Genocidal Thesis
In 1996 Gregory H. Stanton presented a briefing paper to the State Department which included the eight stages of genocide. Stanton postulated that genocide is a process that is predictable, but is not necessarily a linear process. The stages of genocide do unfold in both a predictable and chronological order. Further, earlier stages continue to operate even as the process continues to progress.
Stanton identifies the eight stages as classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, extermination and denial. Subsequently, I researched where America is at in reference to these eight stages. The following paragraphs are the result my research.
Stage One: Classification
Stanton asserts that all cultures categorize people into “us and them” groups. The divisions are often made by using the variables of ethnicity, race, religion and nationality. Examples from history include Germans and Jews, Hutu’s and Tutsi’s. Bifurcated societies which lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most prone to having genocide.
America is in the process of giving back the progress made by such pioneers as Martin Luther King. Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans are increasingly polarizing away from the common theme that we are all God’s children in which most of us share our unique American heritage.
The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case typifies the increasing division between blacks and whites as Obama threw fuel on the fire by commenting on a local criminal investigation and inflamed the racial feelings associated with the case.
Illegal aliens have been another source of divisiveness and the intense animosity was best exemplified through the controversy of SB 1070.
We exacerbate the divisions among our people in the welfare debates. With 47% of the country on some form of public assistance, there is a growing resentment among workers who feel they are supporting bums who will not work. Accurate or not, the division is growing.
Younger police officers no longer see the general public as their ally. Rather, they are trained to see all civilians as the enemy.
In short, America has no shortage of classifications which are being used to divide and conquer. On this point, America has met the first criteria on the road to genocide.
Stage Two: Symbolization
Sociologists and anthropologists tell us that classification and symbolization are universally common to every society. However, it is reaching alarming levels in contemporary America.
I was never an Obama fan. However, I thought his election had demonstrated how Americans were no longer going to divide themselves along racial lines and we would begin to truly carry out the meaning of Constitution and work together to solve our problems. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. The races are further apart than ever before. For example, we hear phrases which serve to differentiate individuals. For example, I see reference to terms such as the “African-American community, or the Latino Community, or the Asian Community.” It is never the “White community” because that would be considered to be racist. when actually, it is Obama who is promoting racism.
What is a black community? I know black people who live in my community. They do not live in some gated community for only black people. I work with people from all ethnic and racial backgrounds. They don’t come out of some ethnic or racial enclave to join me at work. We are neighbors and often friends, yet, the establishment media and their labels are serving to create damaging symbols which are creating unnecessary tensions between various groups. The present terminology is deceptive and divisive and serves to separate human beings who might otherwise get along.
Someone who is a homosexual has to be labeled in sexual preference terms. Why? Why should we care what people do behind closed doors? Isn’t that for God to judge? Judge not lest you be judged. But the corporate controlled media has polarized gays from straights, blacks from whites, citizens from illegal’s, and on and on and on. Why create the symbolic differences? When one is robbing someone blind, they often distract them by creating imaginary enemies, vilify each side with symbols which degrade the polar opposite. Welcome to the divided nation that is America.
America has entered into the hyphenated race wars courtesy of the globalists and their controlled media. One just cannot be a respectable black person who is an American. He/she has to be an African-American. One cannot enjoy the pride of being from a Spanish speaking country, they have to be labeled a Mexican-American. My father’s family is from Germany, and I am not labeled a German-American. Why not? Because German-Americans, Italian-Americans, French-Americans are overwhelmingly white. The symbolism of skin color differences are not there and the globalists cannot gain any traction through hyphenating European descendents. Why can’t we just all be Americans without the hyphens? Because the globalists use this as a vehicle to divideand conquer. I am not minimizing the validity of celebrating the merits of one’s own cultural/racial background, regardless of ethnicity and skin color, I am espousing the virtues of finding a common American identity to better facilitate our mutual cooperation in solving our problems. However, that is not the globalist agenda. They seek to keep us distracted, keep us divided by destroying our sense of nationalism, through this artificial symbolism, and the day will come when all of us hyphenated people will never know what has hit us and we will unfortunately lack the common identity to band together against the forces that seek to enslave us.
We even condition our children to accept symbolic labels as schools make student wear RFID student cards or face suspension. The airports have become the symbolic manifestation of the enslavement of the American people as we are being conditioned to being groped and sexually assaulted by the TSA, and their blue uniforms and pot bellies are symbols of how we are to be treated by the government.
America meets the second criteria on the path to genocide.
Classification and symbolization do not always result in genocide unless they are followed by dehumanization.
Stage Three: Dehumanization
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” – George W. Bush
Who will ever forget this inane statement by one the most intellectually deprived persons to ever serve in the White House? Bush’s message was simple, if you disagree with the government, you are a terrorist. In contemporary American society, this is the ultimate dehumanization as it is the 1950′s Red Scare version of being labeled a communist.
Today the list of dehumanized individuals has increased a 1000 fold as the MIAC report and the recent DHS intelligence briefing are dehumanizing veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Second Amendment supporters, Constitutionalists and Libertarians as domestic terrorists.
The above mentioned groups are not Americans, DHS is labeling them as sovereign citizens who lurk around every corner ready to set off a deadly biological, chemical or nuclear attack. This is total dehumanization. The TSA’s grabbing of our genitals is total dehumanization and we are allowing ourselves to be conditioned, lock, stock and barrel.
Sociologists tell us that dehumanization overcomes the natural barriers against the urge to murder. Media hate propaganda is removing the last barriers to this natural prohibition. America is well on the way to being conditioned to accept genocide as a matter of national policy.
Genocidal cultures lack constitutional protections which would protect contrary speech. In genocidal cultures contrary speech should be treated differently and we are seeing this with the state of Minnesota as they will soon be requiring veterans to have their former military status noted on the drivers license.
America has mostly completed the third stage of genocide, the dehumanization of anti-governmental groups and selected enemies of the state.
Stage Four: Organization
Genocide is always carried out by the government. They often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility, but genocide is always state sponsored.
At this stage, plans are made for genocidal killings. Do we have such plans in the United States? Why yes we do!
Why did DHS buy 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition? Why did DHS purchase 2700 armored personnel carriers?
Is it hunting season at DHS? Who is the game? Over five rounds of ammunition for every man women and child in America.
There are 800 detention facilities that are being fully staffed and operational. Guillotines and box cars with rows of shackles are the new toys of the NWO give new meaning to the following Biblical phrase:
“Rev. 20:4-”And I saw the souls of them who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God…”
Why has FEMA ordered 20,000 box cars and 30,000 guillotines?
Why was the NDAA passed which allows the government to secretly arrest, detain, and murder citizens. Remember, Holder has asserted that Obama has the authority to murder America with drones.
Why was the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order passed? This order allows conscription for both civilian and military duty. All food is controlled by the government. All resources, including bank accounts, businesses and industry are controlled by the government under martial law conditions. This Executive Order gives the President the authority to declare martial law on his/her volition.
America, is this enough preparation for you?
America has met the fourth requirement on the path to becoming a genocidal society. Now let’s look at stage five.
Stage Five: Polarization
Stanton states that in stage five, extremists drive the groups apart and begin to broadcast polarizing propaganda. The corporate controlled media does a wonderful job of doing just this very thing every single day. Immediately, after the bombs were exploded at the Boston Marathon, one of the major CIA’s mouthpieces, Wolf Blitzer speculated on air if the bombs were detonated by a “patriot group”.
Further, the media would have one believe that anyone who wants a real investigation into Sandy Hook is a “conspiracy theorist”, as if investigations are somehow an extremist act. Since 95%+ of the major media is owned by the globalists, should we be surprised that the media is a tremendous polarizing agent?
Also in stage five, Stanton postulates that extremist operatives target the moderates from one’s own group in order to eliminate any derivation of the mission from within. Generally speaking, moderates are in a position to be the most able people capable of stopping the coming genocide. Therefore, anyone who is perceived to not be on board, are the first to be marginalized, arrested and killed.
Although Obama is not presently murdering dissenting moderates within his ranks who are not on board with his brand of tyranny, he is purging senior officers in the command ranks of the military for the slightest disagreement with him.
Last fall, Obama purged two senior command officers in the Middle East in a potential war zone, thus risking these very commands. Subsequently, Obama needlessly endangered a large portion of the military in favor of establishing his absolute dominance over his subordinates.
Obama fiddled, with regard to the threat at Benghazi, and subsequently, Ambassador Stephens was murdered. The former commander of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, and the commander of Carrier Task Force Three, Admiral Charles M. Gayouette, were fired when they attempted to rescue Chris Stephens in violation of their orders. However, the reckless and unprecedented action of firing these commanders came at a critical time in the Middle East as the US was making hints at attacking Syria and Iran at the time. Despite the high levels of tension in the Middle East, Obama was willing to sacrifice military leadership to purge two commanders who refused to be his accomplice to the murder of Ambassador Stephens. In addition, General Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps’ second in command, suddenly stepped down as well, presumably because he also took issue with idly standing by while a group of barbarians raped and killed an American ambassador. Further, CIA Director, David Patreaus was fired during the same time frame for having an extramarital affair. Nobody, but the CNN Kool-aid drinkers, believes the official explanation for the Patreaus departure. Obama has purged 17 senior level officers.Soldiers who attempt to rescue and ambassador against orders, might be hesitant to give the order to fire upon unarmed American citizens when given the directive from the President.
Although Obama is not murdering the moderates under his command, he is removing them from positions of power nonetheless and as such, is accomplishing the polarization he desperately seeks.
civil disobedienceStanton’s genocidal theory presupposes that all polarization emanates from the government. However, polarization can be a two way street. If the government, through a series of provocations, such as passing extreme gun control/gun confiscation legislation, can force the people to take to the streets, the same objectives can be achieved. In other words, is the current administration pushing a sizable number of citizens to react violently? Is Obama trying to force America into a winner take all civil war? Before you would say no, I would invite you to decide for yourself as you take a look at the April 28th poll run by Farleigh Dickinson University’s Public Mind Poll. Registered voter participants were surveyed on whether they believe it will necessary to revolt against government in order to protect our liberties. The results are stunning and are revealed below.
GUNPOLL
These results are indeed quite telling in that 30% of surveyed registered voters feel that an armed revolution may be necessary in order to protect our American liberties. Over 44% of Republicans answered yes, while only 18% of democrats answered in the affirmative.
Polarization can occur at several levels and the Obama administration, at the behest of his puppeteers, are doing a marvelous job of polarizing the country.
Therefore, I have concluded that this administration is in the process of meeting the fifth goal of polarization. This process is not completed but it definitely is a work in progress.
Polarization can occur at several levels and the Obama administration, at the behest of his puppeteers, are doing a marvelous job of polarizing the country.
Therefore, I have concluded that this administration is in the process of meeting the fifth goal of polarization. This process is not completed but it is definitely a work in progress.
So far, this administration’s report card, is five for five, with regard to the first five stages of Stanton’s blueprint for America’s coming genocide.
Stage Six: Preparation
In the preparation stage on the path to genocide, potential victims are identified and separated out often because of their ethnic or religious identity. Sometimes, the death lists are created because of political beliefs and political affiliation.
History shows that the process of creating death lists is normally secretive and incremental in terms of implementation. At first, the intended targets are merely listed as “people of concern.” Specific members of potential victim groups are required to display identifying symbols. This is usually followed by the expatriation of property. This is subsequently followed by forced segregation under the color of discriminatory law. Victims are often to forced to live in segregated ghettos, are deported to a concentration camp or are confined to a famine-struck region and are starved to death.
Are these things happening in America today and do our citizens have any cause for concern in this area?
Enemies of the State: The New Christians Are the Old Jews
Ron Trowbridge, an undersheriff with the Prowers County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office detailed a presentation, on behalf of Homeland Security (DHS) in which Colorado State Patrol Trooper, Joe Kluczynski, gave a two hour presentation on the “sovereign citizen” movement. The message was clear to all in attendance. If Christians take the Bible too literally, they should be considered to be a domestic terrorist threat under the label of what DHS is referring to as being a sovereign citizen.
Lt. Col. Rich warned his subordinates to not back down from “bad Christian behavior” for “when they see behaviors which are inconsistent with Army values, don’t just walk by. Do the right thing before it becomes a problem.” Further, the warning has been given to flag Christians and put them on no buy lists for guns. Rich’s briefing dovetails with the same kind of anti-Christian rhetoric recently presented to Colorado law enforcement officials in La Junta, Colorado in which Christians were prominently displayed in as domestic terrorists if the take the Bible too literally.
The Pentagon should change their name to the Pentagram as the military has confirmed that they have eliminated the free exercise of religion as proselytization is not permitted on military bases. “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense,” spokesperson Nate Christensen stated. Atheists, like the majority who are in charge of the environmental movement at the United Nations have no equivalent restriction. The United States government is officially in the business of religious discrimination and First Amendment is now officially dead.
Labeling and Criminalizing the Exercise of the First Amendment
Who could ever forget the infamous East German Stasi inspired MIAC Report in which the mainstream of America are considered terrorists by the government for the following behaviors.
- If you’re an anti-abortion activist, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you support the Second Amendment, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you display political literature supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you possess subversive literature, such as “End the Fed” literature you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you supported you supported any former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you are a returning veteran, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you are a “conspiracy theorists” (as if two people would never get together to conspire to break the law) who believe, for example, that the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union, you are a domestic terrorist
- If you are a “Militia member” most commonly associated with 3rd party political groups,” you are a domestic terrorist
- If you display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material, you are a domestic terrorist , you are a domestic terrorist
- If you are in possession of the Gagsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag or the widely available anti-income tax film “America: Freedom to Fascism,” you are a domestic terrorist according to the banksters who have hijacked our government
- If you believe that bankster thugs have hijacked the legitimate government, it is presumed you are a domestic terrorist
The Attack On Veterans
If the government ever decided to enact a policy of national genocide, veterans would be America’s first line of defense. They would have the ability to organize and train their local community to resist the impinging tyranny. They would be the leaders of any guerrilla war movement, which surely would characterize any resistance movement.
Veterans are presently receiving letters from the Veterans Administration which state that they must submit to a competency hearing (Editor’s note: without probable cause) and “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reads. This is a blatant attempt to disarm the majority of veterans all across the country in a concerted effort to neuter the last line of defense against the encroaching wave of tyranny sweeping this country.
For the sheep who cling to the false hope that the government would never do this to a veteran, you can read the Connelly VA letter here.
The Minnesota Department of Motor Vehicles, which hopes to have the policy implemented by 2015, cites an inherent mental health threat by veterans as their main reason for devising the plan.
“We’ve seen what these savages are capable of all over CNN and MSNBC,” says DMV director, Greg Olson. “Out of all the millions of men and women who have deployed to combat zones this past decade, there are literally a dozen, perhaps even two, who have come home and committed atrocious acts. That’s way too big a chance. We can’t risk having these people hidden in our community and will be making sure they’re easily identifiable to law enforcement personnel and citizens in general.”
The new policy commands law enforcement personnel, once they have contact with a suspected veteran to “Phase One will consist of the officer identifying an individual’s vet status on his or her driver’s license,” he says. “Once the officer realizes what he or she is dealing with, Phase Two will kick in and they will immediately unsheathe their pistol and drawdown on the potential psychopath. Then, at Phase Three, the officer will be given free reign to search the individual’s vehicle for weapons and dead bodies. If, and only if, the officer doesn’t find anything, then he will subsequently release the veteran and thank them for their service.” It is time to a civics quiz boys and girls.
How many amendments to the Constitution did Commissar Olson just violate?
Unlawful detention: Fifth Amendment Violation
Unlawful Search and Seizure: Fourth Amendment Violation
Right to Free Association (i.e. being a Veteran): First Amendment Violation
Make no mistake about it, Minnesota’s unconstitutional and criminal actions against veterans is the equivalent to handing veterans an ID marked with the J stamp as it is the proverbial bulls eye on the back. And please allow me to re-emphasize, that without armed veterans, any resistance against a move to commit government sponsored wholesale genocide against selected American groups is doomed to failure. America needs it veterans to protect the country from this administration. They are the modern day equivalent of the Minutemen and this is their Lexington and Concord.
Detention Camps
Stanton mentioned that as a prelude to extermination, dissidents and other undesirables must be rounded up prior to extermination. Why not kill them where they stand? It is for the same reason that the Gestapo and Stalinists rounded up the majority of the Jews and political dissidents in the wee morning hours. No witnesses! There would be no visible signs to alert and possibly panic the general population that a massive genocide was underway.
Are there political dissident camps in the United States?
Jessie Ventura did an excellent job of exposing the three necessary elements and features of the detention camps which include the actual existence of the camps, proper staffing and legislative support for FEMA camps. They are political prison camps plain and simple and the evidence is convincing.
-
-
Still, there will be some who will minimize the proof that the government is preparing a home away home for many of us because of personal fear and subsequent denial.
CBS news admits that FEMA camps are real. A report revealed the true existence of a FEMA shelter camp, set up in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, became home for victims of Sandy and is located in Oceanport, New Jersey. This camp contains 40 acres of emergency housing and is located in the parking lot of a race track. The camp is complete with hot meals and hot showers. The CBS report interviewed a representative of FEMA who sells the camp as a refuge for first responders to the storm and then at the end of the interview, as an afterthought, acknowledges that 200+ storm victims and at the time of the report, more refugees were showing up every day.
Reporters were not permitted to enter the FEMA facility amid reports that the “new residents” were reporting that the heating, food and general overall comfort of the camp is not as good as good FEMA people were reporting.
The following excerpts speak as to why federal agencies hire spokespersons. FEMA Camp spokesperson, Scott Sanders must have been absent from work the day that Reed Kozlow was interviewed by a local reporter. “You hover around waiting for the call. When the phone rings I can go. It’s all about the group,” said one of the FEMA workers at the camp, Reed Kozlow. Kozlow went on to state that “Whatever a community needs we provide. For Sandy we set up 12 camps to help.” The Koslow statement is very interesting, because the CBS report leaves the viewer with the impression that this was a single FEMA camp facility and an isolated incident. Yet, Kozlow admits that there is a camp in Meriden, Connecticut, where he brought in big generators, “as big as pickup trucks” with many odds and ends which he compared to setting up a small city complete with light and heat for the victims. And curiously, he admitted to installing fencing around the camp. Fencing? Why would a “FEMA rescue camp” need fencing? The better question is, why would they be keeping people out? And why would that be the case, since they are a rescue facility? The most logical explanation is that FEMA Camps are set up to detain, not to protect and the “facing in fencing” is standard FEMA issue which is why we see fencing designed to restrict movement.
-
-
FEMA camps are being activated and very soon they will be staffed by 100,000 new intern specialists currently being recruited by the Army and the National Guard. And as if the establishment of 800 enslavement and extermination centers is not enough, the globalists have left clues which clearly signals their intentions as well as a fair amount of their game plan. In order to inflict maximum casualties for the desired emotional reaction from the American people, namely fear and submission, malls and sports stadiums are conspicuously effective targets for imaginary terrorists especially when one considers that the Simon Property Group, the largest owner of malls in North America, as well as all of the professional sports leagues have just entered into a “See Something, Say Something” partnership with the Department of Homeland Security.Simon properties have offered their malls as “housing centers” to be used by DHS should a mass relocation of the public be deemed necessary.
Need Job? Out of Work? FEMA Camps are hiring.
If you are out of work and would like a job guarding and exterminating the rest of us, you do your part to serve the NWO and apply here.
Death Lists
Stanton identifies death lists as a surefire indicator that a government sponsored genocide is imminent.
The existence of the Civilian Inmate Labor Program is a page right out of the Nazi playbook. Historically, slave labor and genocidal extermination camps go hand in hand with detention and enslavement being the prelude to mass murder.
There are the rumored Red and Blue lists in which people, prior to the declaration of martial law are taken from their homes and either put into slave labor camps and systematically starved to death or our immediately executed.
Red List – These are enemies of the NWO. Two weeks before martial law they could be taken from their homes and flown to camps for immediate extermination. Generally, these are people in leadership roles or other public positions.
Blue List – Also enemies of the NWO but not necessarily leaders. After martial law these people could be rounded up for “re-programming” in the camps. Survivors will be used mostly for slave labor.
The evidence for Red/Blue lists are mostly derived from anecdotal or unnamed sources and these sources typically do not inspire confidence. However, when the anecdotal evidence is examined in the context of the other elements of Stanton’s Hypothesis, it is probable that death lists do exist and are secretly contained within the well-established police state surveillance grid controlled by DHS and the NSA. Watch the following short video and tell me what the hell is a Red Zone which appears at about 3:50 into the video?
-
-
Along these lines, in 2004, FEMA placed an order with Gunderson steel for 107,200 full-length railroad cars, each with 143 pairs of shackles, capacity for 15,329,600 prisoners. And of course it is now public knowledge that DHS has ordered over 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition and 2700 armored personnel carriers.
Are there guillotines awaiting American threats to “national security?” View this video and decide for yourself.
-
-
Pre-crime arrests, indefinite detention, all in violation of the Constitution, have become mainstream policy for this present administration.
On New Year’s Eve of 2011, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law which makes it legal to detail and incarcerate citizens, indefinitely, without using the due process of law. How clear does it have to be? Are FEMA Camps (real) death lists (rumored) and Guillotines (anecdotal proof) that farfetched within this context? Even if the existence of death lists and guillotines cannot be fully confirmed within the current context, shouldn’t we still ask ourselves what all the rest of this is all about? The establishment of the police state grid reminds me of the old Soviet saying in which they sarcastically proclaim that the last capitalist will sell the last rope to be used in the last execution of that last capitalist. Remember, you are paying for your own demise.
Control of Food
This just leaves us with one more element of Stanton’s sixth stage and that would be the control of food.
Over the past 18 months, the country has witnessed numerous Federal swat team raids of raw milk producers including the harassment of the Amish of all people. These are undoubtedly beta tests for the complete seizure of America’s food supply. And this is all made possible by Obama’s March 16, 2012, executive order entitled, The National Defense Resources Preparedness. This executive order states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, industry, etc.) as long as it is done “to promote nation defense.” Case closed.
Nearly all of Stanton’s preconditions for the fulfillment of the sixth stage of unfolding genocide have been met with the possible exception of death lists. Certainly, the FEMA camps are not vacation centers and one cannot presume that they will come out more healthy than they when they were involuntarily housed at these centers.
Stage Seven: Extermination
The good news is that mass exterminations of American citizens is not being overtly carried out right now by the present administration. I know that many people will say that the genocide has already begun and they will undoubtedly bring up the subjects of Chemtrails, GMO’s, Fluoride, etc. I am not denying that these variables and several other toxins are not having a deleterious impact on human health. However, the only topic under investigation in this series is the question of mass murder being carried out by government sponsored entities against selected elements of the population.
Although there are no exterminations taking place on American soil, it is clear that our country is on a train which is gaining momentum, having passed six stages on the way to genocide. The trains next stop is unquestionably extermination unless the American people can launch an amazing rally and take back the country. However, at this point, it would probably take a civil war to take America back because our country has become such a nation typified by passivity that it probably does not have the collective guts to rise up and fight back because most of us still have food on our collective tables. Meanwhile as the train races toward genocide, it it’s gaining momentum.
What Will the Extermination Look Like?
The best predictor of future events are past events. On that basis, let’s take a short look ahead as to how Stage Seven, Extermination, could potentially look like to many Americans, when it finally unfolds.
It is the Christmas season of 2014. A lot has happened in the past year. The trigger event leading to the trouble that we are presently in started when the banks closed their doors when it was announced that Iran had planted a computer virus which brought down the computerized banking system. Actually, that was a lie. It was another in the long line of false flag events which was designed to help the globalists gain control over everything.
At first, personal banking assets were frozen and then they just disappeared. Most Americans were left without the means to pay their mortgage, or to buy food and medicine. Then the rioting and looting began, and martial law was declared. War was simultaneously launched and Iran was attacked which may bring Russia and China into the conflict.
The first stage of the Extermination stage was underway when the bankers, who have seized control over the government, left the entire western half of the nation exposed to invasion. By prior agreement, the Chinese, fully in control of the Panama Canal, began moving north and, along with North Korea, eventually entered the America’s underbelly in the Southwest. The Russians crossed the Alaskan Land Bridge and decimated Alaska and Northwest Canada.
In a replay of the SS Nazi death squads entering Russia in 1940, entire geographic areas were targeted for extermination by the conquering hordes. Many in the West and the Northwest were summarily executed by the death squads. Many were rounded up and sent to camps where they worked as slave labor until they were no longer needed and were subsequently eliminated. By prior arrangement, the Chinese and the Russians do not enter into the Eastern two-thirds of the country. The Agenda 21 dream of turning the entire west into a wilderness wasteland was realized.
In the Eastern two-thirds of the country, the martial law government let the people stay in their homes so long as they deeded their house back to the bank. It became illegal to store more than three days of food and water. Americans were forced to turn in their guns. Any citizen caught with a gun was committing a capital offense and public executions were summarily carried out. Everyone, even the disabled, were assigned to work brigades. Some work brigade duty consisted of going to your regular job. Most work brigade duty consisted of performing work for the government. Food and gas was rationed. A dusk to dawn curfew was instituted. Two separate drafts, a public sector military draft and private sector government/NGO draft, were instituted (i.e. slaves to the corporations). Despite the horror that had become America, your family had somewhat adjusted until the day your six year old repeated something you had said about the “old” American Constitution at school. The teacher reported your family to the Principal, who in turn, filed an electronic “see something-say something” report with the Department of Homeland Security. You were now a target for re-education and that meant being sent to a camp. Yet, your family was totally unaware of what was coming based upon the innocent statement of your child.
-
-
It is 4AM, and an armored personnel carrier, with a “Department of Homeland Security” emblem displayed on the driver’s side door, accompanied by three black canvass covered trucks pulls up in front of you home. A dozen well-armed men quickly exit the vehicle and train their guns on the windows of your home. Another team exits one of the trucks and forms a protective perimeter for the black garbed terrorists surrounding your house. The troops on the perimeter were tasked with arresting anyone of your neighbors who peers out the window or worse yet, might be videotaping the proceedings. These government terrorist events have happened enough times before that most of the people know not to look out their windows when they hear noises in the early morning hours. With the lights off in the house, the parents run to their children’s rooms to make sure they do not look out the window. Your neighbors remain quiet and are just relieved that the wolf has passed by their door one more time.
-
-
You and your family are fast asleep when the battering ram breaks down your front door. By predesign, from the schematics of your home, the heavily armored swat team enters every bedroom yelling and screaming. Everyone in your family is awakened with a gun pressing against their body while the intruders are incessantly yelling commands designed to terrorize and gain compliance from your family. The government terrorists would prefer not to kill you in your home, but they will not hesitate to do so if you resist.
Your family members are immediately bound and gagged, so that when they rush you from your house, to the waiting transport trucks, your screams of terror cannot alert your neighbors as to the reign of terror that is occurring in your peaceful neighborhood.
Scantily clothed and with no shoes on your feet, you are boarded onto one truck, you attempt to yell to your children that you love them because you know the drill, as you know that you will never see them again. But your muffled sound, goes unheard by your children thanks to the gag covering your mouth. Your spouse is boarded onto a second truck and your children onto a third truck. All are shackled including the children. Then the trucks quickly speed off into the night.
You arrive at a processing center and are dressed in a prison uniform. You are boarded onto a train, traveling all afternoon, until you arrive at a concentration camp, the kind of camp that you have only heard rumors about. And at this point, you realize that a new chapter in human history has begun.
It is a hellish future that I want nothing to do with. Still, there are those that will deny that the first six stages are making the seventh stage possible. However, I see no other conclusion when we collectively examine the hard evidence presented.
Stage Eight: Denial
In writing the first four parts of this article, I have been accused of being a member of the lunatic fringe or an undercover operative for DHS.
Some readers have angrily protested that a genocide could never happen on American soil. A few expressed outrage as they asked me how dare I disparage my country and my government with unsubstantiated charges of laying the foundation for future genocide? “This is America, by God, and we don’t commit genocide.” Really?
Crimes Against Humanity Committed On American Soil
According to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a vast genocide. In fact, biological warfare was committed against the Native Americans.
Ward Churchill writes that on June 20, 1837, the U.S. Army began to dispense diseased “trade blankets” to the Mandan Indians (one of the tribes which aided the Lewis and Clark Expedition). The blankets were presented to the Mandans at Fort Clark in present-day North Dakota. Churchill states that the blankets had been taken from a army infirmary in St. Louis which had been previously quarantined for smallpox. and the Mandans became symptomatic on July 14 leading a local medical official to advise the Indians to scatter and seek refuge in the villages in nearby villages, thus, the pandemic commenced as it was spread far and wide.This was a clear cut case of biological warfare committed against a civilian population.
President Andrew Jackson was instrumental in the events leading up to what historians call the Trail of Tears. President Jackson’s policies toward Native Americans involved the ethnic cleansing of several Indian tribes. This is not unlike what Obama and his DHS and military minions are in the early stages of doing to Christians. Genocide happened to the Cherokee and it is beginning to happen the followers of Jesus. Just substitute Christians for Native Americans in the template, and you’ll get the idea of what lies ahead.
Trail of Tears
Under President Andrew Jackson, 17,000 Cherokees were forced off their land in 1838 and had to undertake the long journey across the Trail of Tears. Historical parallels conjure up images of the Death March to Bataan and the Nazi persecution of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Make no mistake about it, this was an ethnic cleansing inspired genocide carried out with forethought and malice in what became one of the darkest chapters in American History as 4,000 Cherokees died on the Trail of Tears from malnutrition, exposure, and disease.
-
-
Some of the darkest days in history took place under Hitler’s Final Solution. Interestingly, John Benefiel claims that Hitler actually got the idea for his concentration camps from the “Final Solution” treatment of Native Americans.
-
-
And let’s not forget the the biggest genocide in the history of the planet, namely, abortion, and this heinous persecution of God’s most precious creatures has taken place right here on American soil. Some abortions are medically necessary. The vast majority are not. Tragically, adoption centers have waiting lists of loving parents ready to open their homes and their hearts. Through Planned Parenthood, we have institutionalized genocide against the helpless.
We presently live under a despotic President who is forcing Catholics to fund abortions against their religious doctrine. This is evil personified. Since abortion became “legal” in the early 1970′s, 53 million innocent human beings have been the victims of this horrific genocide and now it is official governmental policy. And please spare me the political correctness arguments. To hell with political correctness, we are talking about mass murder, make no mistake about it.
Someone needs to speak for those who cannot. And there are still people who do not think genocide can happen here despite the fact that six of the eight Stanton stages of national genocide have been fulfilled in modern day America and we are in the midst of an ongoing holocaust which surpasses Hitler and Stalin.
There have been genocides in America, there is presently a genocide in America, and the biggest genocide in American history is right around the corner.
This leaves us with the final stage in the Stanton genocidal hypothesis, Denial. Stanton states that leaders will attempt to hide the genocide from world. However, this stage could be a moot point for this present administration, because if the globalists achieve the complete takeover of the world’s economy and subsequently their governments, there will be nobody left to conceal the truth from.
If we allow the banksters who have hijacked our government to continue with their psychopathic policies, they will write the next chapter of history and Ron Paul supporters, Christians, Second Amendment supporters, Constitutionalists and Libertarians will be the next generation of Native American genocidal victims.
Through the NDAA and the National Resources Defense Preparedness Executive Order (13603), Obama already has built-in escape clauses into his heinous preparations on the road to the enslavement of the American people and ultimately to genocide. By some twisted logic, he has granted himself the authority to commit secret arrests and murder whether it be carried out by drones, robots or DHS jack-booted thugs backed up by their 2.2 rounds of newly acquired ammunition. Thanks to a series of Obama Executive Orders and the NDAA, enslavement culminating with genocide will soon be official national policy.
If we ever allow Obamacare to become fully implemented on January 1, 2014, with all of its euthanasia policies, we will never recover as a nation. Make no mistake about it, Obamacare is not about healthcare, it is about enslavement and the full implementation of systematic genocide.
We Are Out of Time and Out of Options
At this point, all options should be on the table. We have been conquered by the mega-bankers. We are being ruled by a sociopathic elite who do not play by any set of rules. I am still hopeful that the military will rise up and take back our country against this illegitimate government because I am quite sure that the sheep that now inhabit America do not possess the intestinal fortitude to do it themselves.
America has a little over seven months to reverse the suicidal direction that the nation has undertaken. If America does not change course now, we will witness the darkest days within our national borders unfold right before our eyes. God Help us!
-
GENOCIDE: AN INTERVIEW WITH PROF. FRANCIS BOYLE
Published on May 1, 2013
On Tuesday, April 30, Leandra Bernstein and Alicia Cerretani interviewed American expert of International Law, Prof. Francis Boyle on both the war and economic crimes against humanity the Obama Administration and those that run that administration are committing.
-
WITH U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP TOXIC, MOSCOW LOOKS TO STRENGTHEN TIES WITH CHINA
China’s new President Xi Jinping chose Moscow, where he arrived Friday for a three-day visit, to be his first foreign destination, highlighting strengthening ties between China and Russia.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (r.) exchanges documents with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping during a signing ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow today.
(Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters)
By Fred Weir, Correspondent / March 22, 2013 at 1:06 pm EDT
MoscowIt’s probably no coincidence that newly-minted Chinese leader Xi Jinping chose Moscow, where he arrived Friday for a three-day visit, to be his first foreign destination.
Over the coming weekend Mr. Xi will huddle in the Kremlin with President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, and other Russian officials to discuss the usual list of items on the two countries’ burgeoning bilateral trade agenda: Russian gas, oil, arms, and engineering goods in exchange for Chinese consumer products. Official sources say they expect about 30 agreements to be signed, mainly in the field of energy.
But underlying that is a growing sense that the two countries are being driven together by shifting geopolitical winds, which are alienating each from the West while intensifying the need for more reliable partnerships. As Xi arrived in Moscow Friday, Mr. Putin stressed that ties between Russia and China have never been stronger, and they are set to grow warmer still.
“Our relations are characterized by a high degree of mutual trust, respect for each other’s interests, support in vital issues. They are a true partnership and are genuinely comprehensive,” Putin told the official ITAR-Tass agency.
“The fact that the new Chinese leader makes his first foreign trip to our country confirms the special nature of strategic partnership between Russia and China,” he added.
In China’s case, all the recent talk in the US of a “pivot to Asia” has Beijing worried that it may be in danger of being isolated by US pressure. China’s standoff with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands in the East China Sea, with the attendant danger of drawing in Japan’s main ally, the US, could be focusing Chinese minds on the desirability of strengthening relations with Russia.
Indeed, some Russian experts suggest that Xi will likely find a delicate moment to remind Putin that Moscow, too, sometimes gets exasperated with “Japanese bellicosity” in the matter of Russia’s longstanding territorial dispute with Japan over the far eastern Kuril Islands which were seized by Soviet forces in the waning days of World War II.
“The US is shifting its priorities from Europe to Asia. That suggests some sort of competition in this arena is inevitable,” says Alexander Konovalov, president of the independent Institute of Strategic Assessments in Moscow.
“Everyone is trying to find the strongest partners for this new situation, and Russia is one of the most desirable partners to have [for China]…. And this fits with the needs of Putin, who needs some dramatic successes in foreign policy at this point. He may well seek to forge a stronger partnership with China,” he adds.
From sour to toxic
The pressures driving Russia to pivot eastward are even more clear.
Over the past year Moscow’s relations with Washington have turned from sour to toxic, and many policymakers in Moscow say they’re no longer even interested in being friends.
The European Union – which is still, officially, listed as a top priority in Russia’s foreign policy doctrine – is beset by financial crisis. It is actively working to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies and, to top it off, last week attempted to bail out banks on the Mediterranean island nation of Cyprus with a special tax that would have hammered thousands of rich Russians who keep bank accounts there.
Russia and China have joined together to veto Western-sponsored resolutions in the UN Security Council that might enable outside involvement in Syria’s ongoing civil war, and both tend to share a common allergy to all talk of “humanitarian intervention“ in any of the world’s trouble spots. Experts say they share similar views on how to contain the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, and also the need to prepare for instability emanating from Afghanistan after the US and NATO allies draw down their forces next year.
“A number of things are converging at the same time,” says Alexei Pushkov, chair of the State Duma’s international affairs committee.
“Countries like Russia and China look at the traditional power centers – the US and Europe – and see that these countries cannot provide answers. Everyone has the feeling that the old world order is finished. This cascade of events drives Russia and China further from reliance on the Euro-Atlantic world. After all, what kind of example do they provide if they just confiscate money from peoples’ accounts?” he says.
“Russia, China, the other BRICS countries, are looking for a new model…. It’s not driven by some sort of anti-Western logic. There is a crisis of trust. There is a feeling that our countries are on their own. We don’t have a point of reference anymore.”
Reasons for Russia-China partnership
On the other hand, Mr. Pushkov says, the positive logic for Russia-China partnership keeps growing.
“We look at Beijing, and we don’t hear them lecturing us about human rights and how to conduct democracy. There is no missionary element on either side. But there is strong economic incentive. The Chinese economy is a factory, and we have the energy to power that factory. That’s a pretty solid basis,” he says.
Russia-China trade turnover has been growing steadily for years, and it jumped by more than 11 percent in 2012 from $88.1 billion the previous year. Official forecasts see it hitting $100 billion by 2015 and $200 billion by 2020.
China now imports about 8 percent of its crude oil from Russia, most coming through the newly-built Skovorodino-Mohe pipeline, which runs to Daquing in northeast China.
But the commodity that’s likely to dominate talks this weekend is natural gas. Russia’s state gas monopoly Gazprom agreed last year that it will construct a major new pipeline in the far east that could deliver up to 68 billion cubic meters of gas to China annually for 30 years. Among other things, such a deal might save Gazprom, whose profitability has been dropping as global gas prices fall and traditional customers in western Europe launch damaging court cases against what they allege are Gazprom’s “anti-market” practices.
Russian and Chinese negotiators have been haggling for years over the price of the gas and, although Chinese sources say they’re hopeful of a breakthrough this weekend, the Russian side insists that no agreement is near enough to be settled during Xi’s visit.
Russia, formerly a major arms exporter to China, has lately been reluctant to sell its most sophisticated weaponry to the Chinese out of fears that they may be reverse-engineered and used to create Chinese products that could eventually compete with the Russian versions in international arms markets.
But Russia has recently agreed to sell 24 advanced, multirole Sukhoi Su-35 fighters to China. And, according to a new report from the Carnegie Endowment, Moscow may now be willing to help China in areas where it lags technologically, such as aircraft engines.
In the longer term, Russia desperately needs Chinese investment, labor, and expertise in its drive to develop its vast Siberian territories . But here, Russian experts say, is the biggest reason that despite all strong arguments for tighter relations, Russia may continue to hold China at arm’s length: Siberia, though rich in resources, is virtually devoid of population. Next door China is teeming with people and explosive economic energies.
In an interview with Russian state TV Thursday, Xi was emphatic in his insistence that all previous border disputes with Russia have been resolved “once and forever” and that China will never pose a military threat to anyone.
This may be enough to calm Russian anxieties, at least for now.
“We are facing major geopolitical challenges from the West all the time. But we don’t hear anything from China that would make us worry,” says Pushkov.
“Of course, it might look different if China were to change, and become a more nationalistic and aggressive nation. But, for the time being at least, China has shown itself to be a moderate, reasonable power that we can work with.”
-
VLADIMIR PUTIN ROLLS OUT THE RED CARPET FOR VISIT OF PRESIDENT XI JINING
Russian premier gives unprecedented welcome to new Chinese leader as relations thaw
By Clifford Coonan
China’s new leader began his first overseas trip as president with a much anticipated visit to Russia today – a symbolic trip that underlines China’s desire to ensure its energy supply while showing defiance in the face of US influence in Asia.
A grand reception was held to welcome President Xi Jinping upon his arrival in Moscow, with guards riding on horseback brought out to greet a foreign leader for the first time. Kremlin guards snapped to attention as Mr Xi and his long retinue walked into the gilded, chandeliered Grand Kremlin Palace, where they met members of official delegations in the ornate St George Hall before sitting down for talks.
“China and Russia are the main and most important strategic partners,” Mr Xi told Russian media upon his arrival. He said he was eagerly anticipating his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “In many ways we speak a common language,” he said.
The grand welcome was a clear indication of the importance placed on the visit by Moscow. Russia is one of the world’s biggest energy producers, and China is the top energy consumer. These realities tend to outweigh the traditionally tense relations between the two neighbouring giants, who were bitter rivals during the Soviet era despite their ideological links.
Russia has watched China’s rise with concern, anxious that it might someday threaten its dominance on its eastern borders. But a bigger concern for the Kremlin, one that it shares with China, is blunting US influence in the region. At the start of talks, Mr Putin described the ties between the two countries as an “extremely important factor of global politics.”
Ahead of Mr Xi’s arrival, he said: “We are working together, helping to shape a new, more just world order, ensure peace and security, defend basic principles of international law.”
Mr Xi said that the relations between the two countries are the best ever.
In recent years, the need to counterbalance the growing might of the US has led to the two to set aside some differences. Strong trade links have also smoothed some of the wrinkles in the interim, with bilateral trade soaring to a record £58bn last year.
Beijing and Moscow have taken similar stances on some of the biggest geopolitical issues of recent years, from North Korea to Iran to Syria, often voting in concert to veto punitive sanctions by the UN Security Council.
Many analysts believe their relationship is likely to strengthen, especially as the United States tries to expand its influence in Asia, and both countries are firm in rejecting Western criticism of their human rights records.
The two leaders are expected to discuss Syria and North Korea, but the economy is likely to dominate.
Shortly before Mr Xi arrived in Russia with first lady Peng Liyuan, a £1.3bn deal was announced by Russian and Chinese companies to develop coal resources in eastern Siberia. Russia also sees China as a way to diversify its energy markets away from Europe and it is keen to tie up a potentially enormous gas deal which could eventually see almost 70 billion cubic metres of gas pumped to China annually for the next 30 years.
Mr Xi’s tour continues until March 30 and he will also visit Tanzania, South Africa and the Republic of Congo. In South Africa he will attend the fifth BRICS summit.
The five key emerging economies that make up BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – have become an increasingly important channel for China and Russia to counter growing US influence.
BRICS countries hold reserves totalling £3 trillion, most of them held by China, and China now accounts for 20 per cent of Africa’s exports.
China surpassed the US and Europe as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009 and has maintained its leading place in the years since.
China’s First Lady: A new role model
In China, the big news about Xi Jinping’s first trip as president has not been about energy, investment or BRICS, but rather about his wife Peng Liyuan’s first public appearance as first lady.
Ms Peng is a hugely popular figure in China, indeed, she was probably better known than him until recently, and adored by millions for her stirring renditions of folk tunes in army uniform or ethnic costume.
“Peng Liyuan has a very positive meaning for China. China needs a female role-model. Imagine what would it be like if China had a First Lady like Michelle Obama?” wrote one online fashion commentator.
Since the cult of personality that built up around Chairman Mao Zedong, the Communist Party has sought to avoid making its leaders too personal. Solid, dull technocrats have run the show, and their wives have been even less visible.
PRESIDENT XI JINPING MEETS RUSSIA’S PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN ON HIS FIRST FOREIGN TRIP TO STRENGTHEN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES
Published on Mar 22, 2013
‘Catching the Chinese wind in Russia’s economic sails’. That is what Russia’s President Vladimir Putin says he is aiming to do. He is currently signing cooperation agreements with the new Chinese leader, after landmark talks in Moscow. Shee Jinping picked Russia for his first trip abroad, since taking office earlier this month. Raffaello Pantucci, co-founder of the Young China Watchers professional network, talks to RT about the growing partnership between Russia and China.
CHINA AND RUSSIA MEET AHEAD OF BRICs SUMMIT IN S. AFRICA TO SOLIDIFY RELATIONS
IN MOSCOW, NEW CHINESE LEADER XI WARNS AGAINST MEDDLING
MARCH 23, 2013
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Chinese President Xi Jinping warned against foreign interference in the affairs of other nations during a speech in Moscow on Saturday, sending a signal to the West and echoing a message often repeated by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Permanent U.N. Security Council members with veto power, Russia and China have frequently teamed up diplomatically to blunt the influence of the United States and its NATO allies and have blocked three draft resolutions on Syria.
“We must respect the right of each country in the world to independently choose its path of development and oppose interference in the internal affairs of other countries,” Xi told students at an international relations school.
He spoke a day after meeting Putin on his first foreign trip since becoming president, a choice both said underscored a “strategic partnership” between Russia and China. In the Kremlin, he told Putin: “you and I are good friends.”
Xi told Russian students on Saturday: “Strong Chinese-Russian relations … not only answer to our interests but also serve as an important, reliable guarantee of an international strategic balance and peace.”
Putin, who began a six-year term last May, has often criticized foreign interference in sovereign states.
Russia and China have resisted Western calls to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over the two-year-old civil conflict that has killed more than 70,000 people.
They both criticized the NATO bombing that helped rebels overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and stood together in the Security Council in votes on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.
Both China and Russia have bristled at U.S. and European criticism of their human rights records.
Putin said in a foreign policy decree issued at the start of his new term that Russia would counter attempts to use human rights as a pretext for interference, and his government has cracked down on foreign-funded non-governmental organizations.
FRIENDSHIP AND FEAR
Xi told Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev his visit had “surpassed my expectations” and said he had chosen Russia as his first foreign destination as president to “show the special importance of our relations.”
Despite the warm words, Moscow is concerned that its far more populous, faster-growing neighbor could pose a threat, something that has not made for easy deals between the world’s biggest energy producer, Russia, and its biggest consumer, China.
Xi’s visit produced an agreement for Russian state giant Rosneft to gradually treble oil supplies to China, but the sides are still short of a deal on the supply of pipeline gas to China, thwarted for years over prices.
Viktor Yaskov, a student who attended Xi’s address, said the Chinese leader made “a good impression”, but expressed fears about the neighbor. “We’re worried about Chinese economic expansion,” he said.
Xi arrived in Moscow with glamorous first lady Peng Liyuan, prompting speculation about whether Putin’s wife Lyudmila – last seen at a state event last May – would make an appearance.
That did not happen, and Peng kept a low profile after her first steps off the airplane caused an Internet sensation in China.
After Russia, Xi will visit Tanzania, the Republic of Congo and South Africa, where he and Putin are expected to meet again at a summit of the BRICS group of emerging economies next week.
CHINESE PRESIDENT’S “HISTORIC VISIT” TO RUSSIA
By John Chan
26 March 2013
Less than a week after the National Peoples Congress (NPC) installed Xi Jinping as Chinese president, he made his first state visit on March 22-24—to Russia. The trip was designed to boost the “strategic partnership” between the two countries, whose economic and strategic interests are threatened by the aggressive policies of the US and its allies in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
Before his departure, Xi declared: “The fact I will visit Russia, our friendly neighbour, shortly after I become China’s president, is a testimony to the great importance China places on its relations with Russia.” In Moscow, he repeatedly emphasised the “special importance” and “priority” of Russia in China’s foreign policy. In turn, Russian President Vladimir Putin described Xi’s trip as an “historic visit” that had brought “positive results”.
China and Russia have developed close ties over the past decade. The two countries formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001 to block the growing US intervention in Central Asia, which intensified after the US-led occupation of Afghanistan. Their strategic partnership has increasingly assumed the status of a quasi-military alliance, in particular following the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008. US interventions in Libya and Syria, its threats against Iran, and its “pivot” to Asia have all undermined the vital interests of Beijing and Moscow.
China’s different relations with Russia and the US were underscored by their contrasting responses to Xi’s inauguration as Chinese president. Putin was the first foreign leader to congratulate Xi, whereas Obama phoned Xi to demand an end to alleged Chinese-backed hacking of US companies, and tougher measures against North Korea.
The Obama administration has delivered some rough lessons to Xi during the past year, since he visited Washington as the heir apparent to Chinese President Hu Jintao. At the time, Xi urged the US to respect China’s “core interests”, which include vital shipping lanes through the South China Sea and East China Sea, which carry energy and raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.
President Obama responded by more openly backing the Philippines and Vietnam to assert their territorial claims against China in the South China Sea. With Washington’s tacit support, Japan deliberately heated up its dispute with China over small rocky islets in the East China Sea, known as Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan. The US also exploited North Korea’s nuclear test this year as the pretext to boost its anti-ballistic missile systems in the Asia Pacific.
Washington’s actions are driving Russia and China to bury their differences and come together to oppose the US. In the Middle East, Russia and China have blocked resolutions in the UN Security Council that would open the door for Western military intervention against the Assad regime in Syria. Similarly, they have opposed military threats against Iran over its nuclear program.
Xi told Russian students at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations: “Strong Chinese-Russian relations … not only answer to our interests but also serve as an important, reliable guarantee of an international strategic balance and peace.” Without naming the US, he said: “No country or bloc of countries can again single-handedly dominate world affairs.”
Asked by a student about Russia’s fear of “Chinese economic expansion” in Russia’s Far East, Xi insisted that the “China threat theory” was groundless and unnecessary. As far as both governments are concerned, their past differences are far outweighed by their mutual fear of the US. Xi’s trip was marked by closer collaboration in the key areas of defence and energy, where there have been longstanding disagreements.
Late last year, China placed major military hardware orders with Russia, including for four advanced Amur-1650 diesel attack submarines and two dozen SU-35 long-range fighters. The Indian media immediately pointed out that Moscow had broken its long-standing “geopolitical rule” of selling less advanced weaponry to China than to India, in order to maintain the regional balance of power. Russia’s sale of latest offensive weapon systems to China for first time in nearly a decade is clearly calculated to beef up the Chinese military against the growing US threat in the Asia Pacific, where Russia also has major interests.
In a symbolic demonstration of greater military cooperation, Xi became the first foreign leader ever to visit Russia’s military command centre in Moscow. Xi told Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu that the relationship between the two militaries was of a “special nature”.
Putin and Xi declared, in a joint declaration, that they “oppose a country or a bloc of countries unilaterally and without limit strengthening anti-missile capabilities, harming strategic stability and international security.” It was a pointed reference to the US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe and Asia that undermine the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals.
Russia and China will also hold large-scale joint military exercises—“Peace Mission 2013”—during June in the Sea of Japan. The exercises will involve Chinese warships crossing through the Tsushima Strait between Japan and Korea, as well as the La Perouse Strait north of the Japanese island of Hokkaido, to meet up with the Russian Pacific Fleet. The naval exercises are obviously meant to send a message to Japan, and the US, that China and Russia intend to pursue their vital interests in these waters, including their territorial disputes with Tokyo.
China and Russia also signed key energy deals during Xi’s visit. Russia’s state-owned Rosneft will triple its oil sales to China to 45-50 million tonnes a year over the next 25 years in exchange for additional loans of $US2 billion. Russian gas giant Gazprom, after a decade of disagreements with China over prices, finally signed a memorandum of understanding to supply China with at least 38 billion cubic metres of gas from 2018—more than Gazprom’s current exports to Germany. Other agreements included a $2 billion deal to develop Russia’s coal resources in the Far East.
Xi underscored the economic and strategic importance of the energy deals, saying: “Oil and gas pipelines have become the veins connecting the two countries in a new century.” China’s energy demands have vastly increased over the past two decades, forcing it to import gas and oil, particularly from the Middle East and Africa. The shipping routes across the Indian Ocean through South East Asia are, however, dominated by the US navy, leaving Chinese imports vulnerable to a US blockade. Under Obama’s pivot to Asia, the Pentagon has strengthened its control of key naval “choke points”, such as the Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia. Access to Russian oil and gas would largely neutralise the US threat to China.
Xi’s visit to Russia marks a significant turning point. The eruption of US militarism is driving Russia and China toward their own military alliance.
-
REPORT: CHINA TO PURCHASE FIGHTER JETS AND SUBMARINES FROM RUSSIA
-
The deal to buy the Su-35 fighters and Lada-class submarines was signed before the recent visit by President Xi Jinping to Moscow, the Chinese newspaper People’s Daily cited state television on Monday.
According to the report, it is the first time in a decade that Beijing purchases “large military technological equipment” from Moscow.
China’s military expansion comes amid its dispute with Japan over a chain of uninhabited islands claimed by both countries in the East China Sea.
“The Su-35 fighters can effectively reduce pressure on China’s air defense before Chinese-made stealth fighters come online,” the report said.
Two of the submarines will reportedly be built in Russia, with the other two to be built in China. The value for the agreement, however, was not mentioned in the report.
Moscow and Beijing are also expected to work together in the field of military technology, which includes building S-400 long-range anti-aircraft missiles, 117S large thrust engines, IL-476 large transport aircraft and IL-78 aerial tankers, according to the report.
However, China’s Defense Ministry has not commented on the report yet.
The Chinese president paid a three-day visit to Moscow from Friday to Sunday. He held talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during his first foreign trip since becoming president earlier in March.
The two sides reportedly signed about 30 deals in the energy sector and other areas during Xi’s stay.
The Chinese president also met with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, becoming the first foreign head of state to visit the Russian armed forces’ control center.
-
RED CHINA POWER
China expanding submarine, missile forces with advanced systems, Pentagon annual report says
Chinese fighter jets, September 2012 / AP
BY: Bill Gertz | Washington Free Beacon
May 6, 2013
China is building two new classes of missile submarines in addition to the eight nuclear missile submarines and six attack submarines being deployed as part of an arms buildup that analysts say appears to put Beijing on a war footing.
“In terms of China’s submarines, they’re investing heavily in a robust program for undersea warfare, developing submarines that are both conventional, diesel-electric powered, air- independent propulsion and nuclear-powered attack submarines,” David Helvey, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, told reporters at a briefing on release of the Pentagon’s annual assessment of Chinese military power.
China has yet to conduct an underwater test firing of its submarine-launched missiles but is deploying new missile submarines and planning advanced versions.
“We see China investing considerably in capabilities for operations in this area,” he said.
The Pentagon’s latest annual report to Congress also includes new details of China’s deployment of an aircraft carrier-killing ballistic missile, two new stealth jet fighters, and a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile in addition to three other new ICBMs.
The Chinese military is also developing cyber warfare capabilities that can be used in preemptive attacks, the 92-page report states.
Chinese missile forces, known as the Second Artillery Corps, are “developing and testing several new classes and variants of offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, upgrading older missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses,” the report said.
Of particular concern to the Pentagon is the deployment near Taiwan of a precision-guided DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, according to the report.
“We’re concerned about the ability of China to develop missiles that can project its military power with precision at great distances from China—obviously something that can hold at risk large surface ships, including aircraft carriers, is something that we pay attention to, but we put it in the context of a number of China’s military developments, again, that we characterize as anti-access and area denial,” Helvey said.
However, Helvey noted that no single weapons system is the problem. Instead, he said, “it’s the integration and overlapping nature of these weapons system into a regime that can potentially impede or restrict free military operations in the Western Pacific.”
“So that’s something that we monitor and are concerned about.”
“The DF-21D is based on a variant of the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile and gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean,” the report said, noting that its range is greater than 932 miles and that it is armed with a high-technology maneuvering warhead.
Additionally, the report confirms, China is building a new road-mobile ICBM that is likely capable of being armed with a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV).
The Free Beacon first reported Aug. 15 that the new missile, described by defense officials as the DF-41, was flight-tested and is expected to be equipped with MIRVs.
“The Second Artillery continues to modernize its nuclear forces by enhancing its silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and adding more survivable mobile delivery systems,” the report said.
New road mobile missiles deployed in recent years include DF-31 and DF-31A mobile ICBMs and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The DF-31A has a range of about 7,000 miles.
“This administration is reluctant to just come out and say it, but this report makes clear that China is preparing for small-scale and then large-scale wars against the United States and its friends and allies,” said Richard Fisher, a China miltiary analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
“It is time to start signalling to China’s leadership the broader economic, political, as well as military costs of its current course before it believes it can confidently embark on surprise military campaigns.”
Beijing is also rapidly building new radar-evading stealth fighter-bombers known as the J-20 and J-31.
“Within two years of the January 2011 flight test of China’s first stealth fighter, which we call the J-20, China tested a second prototype, which is referred to as the J-31,” Helvey said. “The first J-31 flight test, in October 2012, highlights China’s continued ambition to produce advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft.”
Helvey said the Pentagon does not expect either the J-20 or the J-31 “to achieve an effective operational capability before 2018.”
U.S. intelligence assessments from five years ago said China would not field a jet comparable to the U.S. Air Force F-22 stealth fighter before 2018. As a result, the Pentagon canceled production of the F-22 at 187 jets.
The first test flight of the J-20 took place two years ago and surprised the U.S. military. It was tested during the visit of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was criticized for canceling F-22 production.
China’s surface naval forces are also expanding rapidly with deployment of several new types of warships, including the first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.
Helvey said the carrier conducted its first aircraft launch and recovery operations in November with J-15 fighters.
“We anticipate that China will spend the next three to four years on training and integration before achieving an operationally effective aircraft carrier capability,” he said. “China will likely build several indigenous aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.”
Chinese cyber and space weapons capabilities continued to be developed. Helvey said those warfare capabilities are being closely watched.
For the first time, the report linked large-scale cyber attacks and intrusions of computer networks to the Chinese government and military.
“In addition, in 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the United States government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to [People’s Republic of China] government and military organizations,” Helvey said.
Asked about Chinese economic espionage, Helvey declined to provide details but said, “We’re always mindful of the potential threats to the security of our defense technology and defense systems.”
The report also discusses China’s assertions of territorial and maritime claims that are upsetting stability in the region.
“In this report, we do highlight China’s increased assertiveness with respect to its maritime territorial claim,” Helvey said.
China is claiming most of the South China Sea as its territory and is disputing Japan’s claims to the Senkaku Islands. Both areas are said to have large deposits of undersea gas and oil to which energy-hungry states in the region seek access.
China’s government routinely protests the annual report, claiming it is part of a Pentagon campaign to hype the threat from China.
Helvey said the Chinese are aware of the report and were not consulted prior to its release on Monday.
“China’s leaders continue to see the modernization of its military as a central component of their strategy to advance China’s national development goals in the first two decades of the 21st century,” he said.
Fisher, the IASC military analyst, said the latest report is far more useful than the truncated 43-page report from 2012.
“The first ever report disclosure of development of the Type 096 SSBN raises the prospect of a new submarine launched missile that also may be multiple warhead capable,” Fisher said. “As the Administration presses for additional reductions in U.S. nuclear warhead levels and shows reluctance to fund U.S. nuclear arsenal modernization, it is doubly important that Congress be informed about the size and growth of China’s nuclear forces.”
Fisher said the report failed to address China’s transfer of strategic missile technology to North Korea, specifically the transporter-erector launchers for Pyongyang’s new KN-08 road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile disclosed for the first time during a military parade in April 2012.
“A failure to chastise and sanction China’s action will only serve to undermine confidence in American security guarantees and increase interest by our allies in their own nuclear deterrents,” he said.
Former State Department intelligence official John Tkacik said the report’s most important revelations are on the Chinese navy and especially its submarine forces.
“Last year’s report disclosed that two Jin-class ballistic missile submarines were already operational, and now the 2013 report counts three, so I take the DIA bean-counters’ word for it, China is launching one new boomer each year,” Tkacik said.
Each of the missile submarines will be equipped with 12 JL-2 missile that likely will have multiple warheads. The new submarines mean the Chinese are adding at least 180 new nuclear warheads to their arsenal, a sharp increase from the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240 warheads, Tkacik said.
In addition to the new missile submarine planned as a following on to the Jin submarines, China is planning at least one more advanced Typ 096 missile submarine a year indefiniately, Tkacik added.
“The real news is the construction of a new special-purpose class of guided-missile submarine, the Type-095 SSGN,” he said. “A Chinese SSGN [cruise missile-firing submarine] is not only a new threat for the U.S. Navy to worry about, but it will deeply unsettle China’s neighbors in East and Southeast Asia.”
PENTAGON LIFTS VEIL ON SEVEN NEW OBSCURE CHINESE WEAPONS
Two new models of stealthy jet fighter. A new(ish) aircraft carrier. Separate ballistic missiles for targeting orbital satellites and ships at sea. A host of cyberespionage tools. Everybody’s already heard about China’s main new weapon systems, developed and deployed in alternating fits of secrecy and pageantry over the past decade of the Middle Kingdom’s explosive economic and military growth.
But what about China’s other high-tech war gear — those air, sea, space and ground systems that round out Beijing’s fast-modernizing armed forces and underpin the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s expanding ability to influence, or even bully, its Asian neighbors? The latest installment (.pdf) of the Pentagon’s annual report on Chinese military developments, released today, highlights some of these lesser-known but still potentially world-changing weapons.
Photo: Xinhua
-
-
Export drone
Unveiled in November at the Zhuhai air show in southern China following seven years of development, the Yi Long drone — Beijing’s $1-million answer to the more expensive U.S. Predator and Reaper — is likely meant for domestic use and export, according to the Pentagon’s China report.
“Chinese arms are less expensive than those offered by the top international arms suppliers, although they are also generally of lower quality and reliability,” the report notes. But Beijing’s intended buyers — the worst African and Middle Eastern autocracies, for the most part — usually don’t mind these drawbacks, as they’re often embargoed from buying better-quality arms from mainstream suppliers.
And that’s exactly why the world should worry about Yi Long and other export-optimized Chinese drones. They’re not the best systems in the world, but they’re highly likely to wind up in the hands of exactly the kind of people who can’t be trusted with them.
Knock-off attack copters
Since last year, the ground-warfare branch of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has “benefited from increased production of new equipment, including the Z-10 and Z-19 attack helicopters,” according to the U.S. China report. Roughly analogue to the American Cobra gunship and Kiowa scout, respectively, the Z-10 and Z-19 could provide PLA ground troops their first reliable close air support — a major combat advantage.
But technically the Chinese shouldn’t possess at least one of the helicopters. While the Z-19 is a copy of a copy of a French design and just might be legal (Beijing did legally acquire the rights to Paris’ original blueprints), the Z-10 relies on engine controls illegally acquired from a Canadian subsidiary of American manufacturer Pratt & Whitney.
The company, which also builds engines for American stealth fighters, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized technology transfer last summer and paid a $75-million fine, the China report notes. But it’s too late to prevent Beijing from producing scores or even hundreds of Z-10s using the illicit hardware.
Photo: China Daily Forum
Digital command
For many decades the three-million-strong PLA — by far the world’s largest active army — banked on sheer mass over combat prowess, planning to overwhelm battlefield adversaries with waves of infantry and tanks instead of maneuvering for advantage.
That’s beginning to change. “To develop a new cadre of officers, the PLA is reforming its academies to cultivate junior officers proficient with and capable of leveraging technology in all warfighting functions,” the China report states. To this end, last year some Chinese army training exercises banned paper maps, forcing officers to use computerized systems for command and control — a practice that has long been commonplace in the U.S. military.
Photo: World Affairs Board
Space beacon
As Chinese forces become more high tech, they increasingly need access to space-based systems to plot their movements and guide their weapons. Last year the PLA launched six copies of its Beidou positioning satellite, Beijing’s answer to the American GPS spacecraft.
Beidou allows ground, air and sea forces to determine their location on Earth with a high degree of accuracy — but only within east Asia. Beidou is a geostationary constellation that, so far, only covers China and its immediate surroundings.
The six GPS-style spacecraft that Beijing placed in orbit last year “completed the regional network as well as the in-orbit validation phase for the global network,” according to the China report. In other words, Beidou could get a lot more expansive in coming years, laying the navigational foundation for Chinese military deployments all over the world.
Photo: Xinhua
Sea guardian
The sea, more than any other domain, is the focus of the PLA’s modernization. Last summer’s first test cruise of the refurbished Soviet aircraft carrier Lioaning symbolized Beijing’s determination to eventually dominate the western Pacific Ocean.
But at her debut, Liaoning was basically defenseless. Whereas American, French and Russian flattops sail alongside powerful escort ships bristling with radar-guided defensive missiles, Liaoning sailed alone. The PLA Navy lacks large, modern warships with the equivalent of the U.S. Navy’s Aegis radar and Standard missile.
That, however, is changing. Last year China launched the first of up to a dozen Type 052D destroyers, likely meant to equal U.S. warships’ ability to protect aircraft carriers. The new destroyer type includes what the China report describes as “the PLA Navy’s first multipurpose vertical launch system” for rapidly firing large numbers of missiles.
Photo: China Military Review
Arsenal sub
China is making huge progress with its undersea military capabilities, building several new nuclear- and diesel-powered submarines per year. China’s subs are still smaller, louder and less sophisticated than American models, but Beijing has signaled its clear intention to some day match the U.S. sub-for-sub.
That applies even to America’s most secretive submarine type, the Ohio-class guided missile subs, converted from nuclear ballistic missile carriers. Today these so-called “SSGNs” — in essence, undersea arsenals — pack 154 conventional cruise missiles plus special facilities for deploying commandos and drones.
Indications in the past year are that China wants a similar sub. “In the next decade, China will likely construct the Type 095 guided-missile attack submarine (SSGN), which may enable a submarine-based land-attack capability,” the China report warns. The new sub’s ability to strike land targets at long range from the sea would be a first for Beijing.
Photo: Military News
Near-shore defender
This spring, to great fanfare, the U.S. Navy deployed its first Littoral Combat Ship, a type of near-shore combatant, to Singapore, America’s newest Pacific outpost. China is countering with new coastal warships of its own.
In 2012 the PLA Navy launched “at least” six Type 056 shallow-water corvettes armed with guns and missiles — and might build up to 30 total, according to the report. The corvettes will “augment” China’s fleet of 60 brand-new, missile-armed Type 022 fast attack craft “for operations in littoral waters.”
The new near-shore combatants support a layered defensive strategy aimed at “engag[ing] adversary surface ships up to 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast,” the report states. With its periphery secure, China can increasingly turn its military attention outward to the surrounding region … and to the rest of the world.
-
WHY BEIJING COULD WIN THE GREAT CHINA-AMERICA SHOWDOWN
By David Axe | Wired
Over the next 15-20 years, the U.S. and China are headed for a confrontation in the western Pacific, with Japan caught in the middle. And China, currently the underdog, could very well come out on top. That’s the unnerving conclusion of a new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
The nine authors of “China’s Military & the U.S.-Japan Alliance in 2030,” released Thursday, stress that a full-blown shooting war is not in the cards. “The threat is not a war with China,” the report states. Rather, Washington and its close ally Tokyo could find themselves losing influence and disputed island territory to an increasingly unconstrained Beijing that finds it can “win without fighting” owing to a combination of its own military rise and its rivals’ relative declines.
But Chinese “victory” in this projected 2030 conflict is not preordained. It’s also feasible the U.S. and Japan could “win” as their own armies and economies rally against a China dragged down by shrinking exports and demographic stagnation.
In any event, change of some sort is probably coming, the report authors say, although what change is unclear. The status quo – a western Pacific comfortably dominated by the U.S. with its aircraft carriers, bombers and Marine regiments, with Japan playing a key supporting role and China steadily adding to its military arsenal while biding its time — is “unsustainable,” they claim.
What follows are sketches of three possible scenarios from the report, representing two extremes plus a sort of strategic middle ground in the anticipated Great China-America Showdown of 2030.
A Chinese jet fighter at a recent training exercise. Photo: via China Defense Blog
New World Order
China’s 10-percent annual economic growth continues unabated despite high debt, an aging population and vexing ecological concerns. The People’s Liberation Army enjoys year after year of elevated spending. Its homegrown ships, planes and missiles get better and better alongside improving Chinese military doctrine, leadership and training.
But on the opposite side of the Pacific, the United States succumbs to its own internal problems. Economic growth slows to just 1.5 percent per year, leading to what the Carnegie experts describe as “enormous downward pressures on U.S. defense spending and U.S. military deployments in Asia.”
The stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to rescue U.S. air power from obsolescence, instead falters, as does an ambitious program to develop a new, affordable stealth bomber. A shrinking American naval fleet runs low on floating sonobuoys used to detect the new and improved Chinese submarines pouring out of the country’s shipyards.
Broke and demoralized, America retreats from the Pacific, leaving an equally struggling Japan to fend for itself against its powerful neighbor. Instead of ramping up its own military spending in order to confront China, Japan strikes a conciliatory tone with the world’s new Pacific hegemony.
This worst-case (for Washington and Tokyo) combination of events is “highly unlikely but not entirely inconceivable,” according to the Carnegie report. But if they or similarly bleak circumstances come to pass, the Asia-Pacific in 2030 truly will belong to Beijing. “Needless to say, this scenario would present an enormous potential for severe crises.”
The USS Nimitz carrier leads a Navy task force in a recent Pacific deployment. Photo: Navy
America Rules
The opposite extreme is an era of substantially increased U.S. presence in the western Pacific. For Washington and Tokyo, a stronger Asia-Pacific posture would result in “a more stable long-term regional security environment,” according to the Carnegie authors. Especially if American resurgence meets with a collapse in Chinese military capabilities and strategy.
But this rosy scenario counts on a big boost in U.S. military spending, amounting to a full four percent of GDP — an assumption that itself hinges on a rapid economic recovery from today’s depressed levels plus a sustained high birth rate. In addition to more spending, the “America-wins” future assumes ideal outcomes across a wide range of military initiatives. The F-35 fighter and the new stealth bomber come in on time and on budget — and they both work as advertised. A U.S. plan to expand its naval fleet also proceeds without a hitch.
At the same time, all the major trendlines towards a stronger and more assertive Chinese military would have to reverse themselves — and fast. The open spigot of weapons funding would have to close. Technologies already in development would have to fail. Training exercises currently growing more realistic would need to end or somehow get dumber.
In short, this outcome is unlikely. “It is quite probable that the United States and Japan will lack the financial resources, technological capacity and political willpower necessary for such an ambitious military response, especially in the next 15 to 20 years,” the report warns.
Middle Ground
So which scenario is probable? America does not collapse back into economic crisis but neither does yearly growth reach the three-percent threshold policymakers desperately hope for. China also enjoys moderate economic expansion sustaining continued improvement of its air, sea, land, space and cyber forces.
Japan meanwhile navigates perilous domestic politics in order to somewhat increase its own military investment, resulting in a more powerful navy, a small number of stealth fighters for its air force and a naval infantry force modeled on the U.S. Marine Corps.
This “slightly unstable” scenario is the “most likely” of those studied, according to the experts. With relations between China and the U.S.-Japan alliance slowly eroding year on year, “this situation would result in a greater likelihood of tensions and incidents” compared to now. But the chance of major flare-ups, to say nothing of a shooting war, would be as remote as it is today.
This version of the western Pacific circa 2030 is also probably the best that anyone in Washington should hope for, given economic, cultural and strategic realities. It’s “manageable,” and its military balance still “slightly” favors the U.S, according to the report.
If the Carnegie experts are to be believed, the likely future of U.S.-Japanese-Chinese relations looks a lot like today, although more volatile. In that sense the think tank’s report could be mistaken for, well, accepted wisdom. It’s tempting to project current, short-term trends in straight lines over decades, although in reality today’s trends are often fleeting — and poor predictors of the future.
It should not come as a surprise, then, if the seemingly unlikely fringe scenarios spelled out in the Carnegie report – both pro-U.S. and pro-China — look a lot more realistic in just a few short years. Between America and China, with Japan watching closely from the sidelines in the world’s new strategic center of gravity, the future could be a toss-up.
-
REPORT: PENTAGON TO BUY RUSSIAN HELICOPTERS DESPITE BAN
-
WASHINGTON, April 4 (By Maria Young for RIA Novosti) – The US Department of Defense said Thursday it plans to sidestep a Congressional ban to purchase 30 helicopters from Russian state-owned defense firm Rosoboronexport, despite objections from US lawmakers who allege that the firm has equipped the Syrian government to commit brutal crimes against civilians.
“The Department of Defense (DOD) has notified Congress of its intent to contract with Rosoboronexport for 30 additional Mi-17 rotary-wing aircraft to support the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) Special Mission Wing,” Pentagon spokesman James Gregory told RIA Novosti in emailed comments.
The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by Congress last year, includes an amendment that prohibits financial contracts between the United States and Rosoboronexport, except when the Secretary of Defense determines that such arrangements are in the interest of national security.
“Given current timelines, the department has determined that Rosoboronexport is the only viable means of meeting ANSF requirements” for the helicopters, Gregory said.
The contract totals $690 million, most of which would go to the Russian arms maker, he added.
In February, US President Barack Obama announced plans to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 66,000 to 34,000 over the next year, leaving Afghan forces with an increased role in their nation’s security.
Many of the Afghan forces have already been trained to operate the Russian aircraft. Switching to a new platform would delay the readiness of their rotary wing division by at least three years while crews get training and experience on a new system, Gregory said.
A bipartisan Congressional group wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week in which they objected to the ongoing business relationship between the Russian arms company and the Pentagon.
“What is the national security justification of continuing business with Rosoboronexport?” they asked in the letter.
“Russia continues to transfer weapons through Rosoboronexport to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria,” they continued. “Since the Syrian uprising began, Russia has continued to serve as the Assad regime’s chief supplier of weapons, enabling the mass murder of Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government.”
Russia, however, has insisted that the deliveries are legal under international law and that it is not supplying Syria with offensive weapons. Moscow has also questioned the composition and goals of the various armed groups fighting the Assad regime.
US Rep. Jim Moran, who co-authored the amendment, said Rosoboronexport had supplied nearly $1 billion in arms to Assad’s government between 2011 and 2012, including high-explosive mortars, sniper rifles, ammunition and refurbished attack helicopters.
Public records show that some of the representatives who signed the letter and sponsored the amendment–including Moran, Rep. Kay Granger and Rep. Rosa DeLauro—have received campaign contributions from US defense contractors.
But Moran’s spokeswoman, Anne Hughes, described any implication that the lawmakers’ concern is more about campaign contributions than arms for Syria as “laughable.” Representatives of the other lawmakers did not respond to requests for comment.
“The objections are understandable, the US defense industry needs contracts. … But from a cost-benefit analysis, Russian helicopters are a better deal,” Simon Saradzhyan, a security expert at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, told RIA Novosti on Thursday.
The Russian helicopters, he said, are generally not as sophisticated or advanced as those made in the United States, making them arguably more suitable for use by Afghan security forces.
“This is the Russian competitive edge,” Saradzhyan said. “They cost less and they are easy to maintain. This is how Russian arms supporters make their sales speech.”
The Russian aircraft “are superbly suited for harsh environments,” said Gregory, the Pentagon spokesman.
In their letter to Hagel, the lawmakers asked what steps the Pentagon had taken to consider alternative helicopter suppliers. They also requested that the department prepare a detailed briefing and present it to Congress before taking any action on the pending contract.
Hagel has received the letter, Gregory said.
“He will of course respond.”
-
DEFYING CONGRESS, OBAMA SENDS U.S. TAXES TO RUSSIAN STATE ARMS FIRM
-
-
Written by Alex Newman | The New American
Despite a bipartisan federal law prohibiting financial contracts with the Russian government-owned arms giant Rosoboronexport, the Obama administration announced that it would be purchasing another $680 million worth of military helicopters from the state company for the Afghan regime of Hamid Karzai. The contract comes after the Pentagon already spent $411 million with the supplier since May of 2011, bringing the estimated amount of U.S. taxpayer funds funneled to the state-owned behemoth to about $1 billion in recent years.
The latest deal, however, drew furious outrage from across the political spectrum. Critics and lawmakers complained that the controversial scheme would boost Russia’s military-industrial complex even as millions of Americans remain out of work. Other opponents highlighted national security concerns. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and human rights groups also expressed opposition to the plan, citing a congressional ban on deals with Rosoboronexport and the fact that the Russian military supplier has been arming rogue regimes around the world.
Under an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law by President Obama, the U.S. government is prohibited from sending funds to or entering into contracts with Rosoboronexport, lawmakers noted. The only exception to that prohibition is if the Secretary of Defense deems it to be in the “interest of national security.” Now, a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is demanding that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel explain what possible excuse there could be to purchase more military helicopters from the government-owned Russian arms dealer.
“Despite this new law, we learned that the Army intends to enter into a new contract with Rosoboronexport in the coming weeks to procure 20 additional helicopters for the Afghan National Security Forces,” the 10 lawmakers said in a strongly worded March 25 letter sent to Hagel urging him to kill the contract. “This plan runs in direct contravention to both the spirit of the FY13 NDAA and the clear legislative intent of Congress — to ban further business dealings with Rosoboronexport. In our view, any attempt by DoD to utilize prior-year funds would constitute a direct subversion of existing law.”
In the letter, the bipartisan group of U.S. representatives also asked Hagel to prepare a detailed briefing explaining the decision. “What is the national security justification of continuing business with Rosoboronexport?” the lawmakers asked, outraged because the state-owned company has been supplying weapons to the Syrian regime amid a war against Western-backed Islamists. “Relatedly, last year, DoD notified Congress of plans to purchase 33 Mi-17s from Rosoboronexport for the Afghan National Security Forces. What is the national security justification for the additional 20 helicopters this year? … What steps is DoD taking to ensure that it does not support — financially or otherwise — enablers of mass atrocities?”
Hagel has received the letter and intends to respond, Pentagon spokesman James Gregory was quoted as saying in an e-mail to Russia’s state-run RIA Novosti news agency. “The Department of Defense (DOD) has notified Congress of its intent to contract with Rosoboronexport for 30 additional Mi-17 rotary-wing aircraft to support the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) Special Mission Wing,” he said. “Given current timelines, the department has determined that Rosoboronexport is the only viable means of meeting ANSF requirements.”
In the Senate, lawmakers are furious as well. Among other concerns expressed by senators was the fact that the Pentagon did not solicit bids from any other company for the helicopters, according to news reports. Speaking to Businessweek, GOP Senator John Cornyn of Texas said that “seems just plain stupid.” Sen. Cornyn is one of 17 senators thus far, including eight Democrats and eight other Republicans, urging the Defense Department to cancel the contract. Experts say there are plenty of helicopter suppliers that could fill the order.
Critics, however, lambasted the decision from all angles. “Aside from throwing almost $700 million to a company owned by the Russian government at a time when Obama has taken a chainsaw to the United States military, subsidizing the Russian defense industry helps it develop more weapons that will be sold to America’s enemies,” noted analyst Daniel Greenfield in a piece for FrontPage magazine. “That money will help fund R&D for the next generation of weapons that an American military dismantled by Obama will be facing on the battlefield.”
In an analysis offered by the Capitalism Institute, an organization dedicated to advancing free markets and limited government, multiple problems with what it called the “corrupt” deal were highlighted. Among the examples cited in the piece about what was wrong with the contract: giving taxpayer money to Russia, sending more military hardware to the Afghan government, using no-bid contracts, and bypassing Congress.
“That’s right, this foreign aid is even worse than the aid being given to Egypt, because at least Egypt was buying U.S. hardware,” the institute noted, referring to Obama’s controversial decision to send fighter jets and tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood regime. “In the end, like almost all of our foreign policy, this was about power. It’s not about liberty, or security, or the economy. It’s about power brokering. We simply can’t afford this any longer.… People need to know that there’s bipartisan anger over Obama taxing us to give to the Russians.”
The John Birch Society, a conservative organization and an affiliate of this magazine, has been sounding the alarm about the Russian government for decades. It also expressed opposition to the latest scheme — not to mention the fact that foreign aid, including arming foreign governments, is not authorized by the Constitution. In a weekly video address, CEO Art Thompson criticized the deal. “Isn’t that nice?” he wondered sarcastically. “I guess they didn’t inform the generals at the Pentagon who the enemy is.”
Thompson also highlighted the fact that the Obama administration was sending advanced military weaponry to the Islamist regime now ruling Egypt after the U.S. government-backed “Arab Spring” overthrew the previous government. Adding insult to injury, the new Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Egyptian government recently announced an “integration” deal with the mass-murdering genocidal regime ruling Sudan, which the U.S. State Department has listed as a state sponsor of terrorism for over two decades.
Other critics of the Rosoboronexport contract pointed to documents released by WikiLeaks suggesting that the Obama campaign had received Russian money. The controversial deal with Russia’s military-industrial complex, however, is not the first time the Pentagon has been embroiled in scandal surrounding its procurement decisions to arm the Afghan regime. The U.S. Air Force, for example, decided to purchase fighter planes from the Brazilian government-controlled company Embraer for the Karzai regime even though the American company Beechcraft said it was willing and able to provide more cost-effective alternatives.
Russia and Brazil, of course, are both members of the so-called “BRICS” — an alliance of socialist and communist-minded regimes that also includes the Communist Party dictatorship ruling mainland China, the African National Congress (ANC)-South African Communist Party (SACP) regime ruling South Africa, and the socialist-oriented Indian government. The BRICS group recently released its latest manifesto calling for a global currency that would eventually displace the increasingly unstable U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency.
The Rosoboronexport contract is also not the first time that the Obama administration has been under fire for cooperating with the Russian military. As The New American reported last year, the administration invited airborne terror troops from Russia to train with U.S. forces on American soil for the first time in history, fueling suspicion and outrage among critics.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, told The New American in an e-mail. “Aside from typical military training, the exchange will include discussions on the rule of land warfare, developing appropriate rules of engagement, and employing cultural literacy and competency in the tactical environment.”
Analysts are not hopeful, but whether or not the massive public and congressional outcry will end up killing the potentially unlawful contract with Rosoboronexport remains unclear. As Obama told then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev over an open microphone last year before his reelection, “I’ll have more flexibility” after winning another term. It appears to critics as though, unless Congress takes serious action, the increased “flexibility” will mean further problems for the United States — at least for the next four years.
-
‘WAR OF LISTS’ CHILLS U.S.-RUSSIA TIES
Tit-for-tat bans on US and Russian officials travelling between the countries have plunged relations between Moscow and Washington to a new low on the eve of a high-level US visit to Russia’s capital.
The diplomatic row is an awkward backdrop for Tom Donilon, US National Security Adviser, who is due to hold talks with Russian officials in Moscow on Monday, partly in preparation for a summit between Barack Obama, US president, and Russian president Vladimir Putin tentatively scheduled for June.
On Saturday, Moscow banned 18 US officials from entering Russia after the US the day before published a list of 18 Russian officials barred from the US and subject to US asset freezes owing to their alleged involvement in human rights abuses in Russia.
Known as the Magnitsky list, many of the 18 Russians were involved in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who died in prison in 2009 after he tried to expose a $230m tax fraud by police investigators.
In addition to the 18 Russian officials, the US has banned an unspecified number of officials on a separate blacklist which remains classified, according to the US State Department.
On Saturday, Russian newspapers reported that one name from the classified blacklist is Ramzan Kadyrov, leader of the autonomous region of Chechnya, who is believed by US officials to have participated in a number of human rights abuses including torture and murder of political opponents.
Mr Kadyrov said of his reported inclusion on the Magnitsky list: “I am proud that I am Russian, proud that I am unpleasant for America, because they are involved in outrages all over the world,” he said. “I love my homeland, and as I said, even if I were not on the list, even in that case I would not buy a ticket to America,” he said, according to Interfax news agency.
Russia’s blacklisting of 18 US officials is a riposte to the US, which the Kremlin accuses of moralising without sufficient attention to its own lapses.
“The war of lists is not our choice, but we have no right not to respond to blatant blackmail,” the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement on Saturday. “It is high time for politicians in Washington to finally realise that it is futile to build relations with a country like Russia in a spirit of mentoring and outright diktat.”
The Russian foreign ministry’s blacklist include four former US officials who it alleges were responsible for “legalising torture” when they oversaw the US detainee programme during the height of the war on terror.
These included David Addington, who served as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and gave legal assistance to the US adminsitration’s interrogation policies and John Yoo, a high-ranking Bush administration lawyer with knowledge of “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Also on the Russian list were Major General Geoffrey D. Miller and Rear Admiral Jeffrey Harbeson, each of whom commanded the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The rest of the US officials on the Russian list were accused by Russia of violating the rights of its citizens abroad – those who had participated in the overseas arrest of suspected Russian arms trafficker Viktor Bout and, in a separate case, against a Russian pilot accused of drug trafficking.
Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the upper chamber of Russia’s parliament, told Russian news agencies that the Russian response was calibrated not to exacerbate a tense situation.
“Russia reacted with a ‘mirror response.’ In diplomatic language, that means that we didn’t let the unfriendly gesture by the US go unanswered, but nevertheless, we are not interested in the escalation of tension and inflation of the spirit of ill will in bilateral relations,” he said.
-
BRITISH COMMANDERS SET TO MEET IN WASHINGTON
On Monday, March 25, a top-level delegation of British military commanders—their equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)—will be in Washington for the highest level deliberations with their American counterparts since World War II. The talks come at a moment when the U.S. JCS, led by General Martin Dempsey, are opposed to British and French demands for an escalation of U.S. and European military aid to the Syrian rebels to accelerate the Syrian regime change program. Gen. Dempsey is scheduled to visit both Beijing and Moscow in April as part of a broader effort by a U.S. military and foreign policy faction to repair the badly damaged relations with Russia and China, as part of a continuing war-avoidance effort.
-
U.S., U.K. CHIEFS TO HOLD HISTORIC STRATEGY MEETING
By VAGO MURADIAN and MARCUS WEISGERBER | Defense News
MARCH 23, 2013
WASHINGTON — In what is believed to be the first time since the 1940s, the entire British defense staff will be here March 25 to discuss long-range strategy and the impact of budget cuts with their U.S. counterparts, according to U.S. and British sources.
The meeting is reminiscent of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, when British and American military leaders joined forces during World War II. Both nations are undergoing significant budgetary reductions and will continue to rely on each other in future years for support. Understanding what capabilities will survive and won’t is essential to long-term strategic planning.
“The relationship military to military is very strong. We have common interest in how we meet the financial constraints placed on both nations, but also on issues like how we manage the drawdown in Afghanistan and also how we reconfigure post Afghanistan,” said Sir Gerald Howarth, a member of parliament and the ex-defense minister responsible for international security affairs from 2010 to 2012.
“We have a huge amount of strategic issues to discuss where we have a very large level of common interest,” he said.
A Defence Ministry spokesman characterized the meeting as private and declined further comment.
In the U.S., spokesmen for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to questions.
U.S. and British military leaders regularly discuss ongoing issues. What’s different about this series of meetings is they will focus not on immediate budget, program or operational issues, but the strategic future of the Anglo-American alliance, including deepening cooperation.
In addition to the U.S. Joint Chiefs, British attendees are expected to include Gen. Sir David Richards, chief of the Defence Staff; Gen. Sir Nicholas Houghton, vice chief of the Defence Staff, who will take over as chief when Richards retires later this year; Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, chief of the Air Staff; Adm. Sir George Zambellas, incoming Navy first sea lord; Gen. Sir Peter Wall, chief of the General Staff; and Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, commander of Joint Forces Command, sources said.
The U.S. and U.K. regularly share the most sensitive military intelligence, technology and equipment, including submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles. Britain over the past decade in particular has shaped its capabilities to dovetail with U.S. forces.
The British are the leading developmental partner on the U.S.-led F-35 fighter program with Lockheed Martin and have in their inventory Boeing C-17 transports, Chinook and Apache helicopters and Lockheed C-130 cargo aircraft. In addition, the Royal Air Force is buying highly sensitive RC-135 Rivet Joint intelligence planes produced by L-3 Communications in the U.S., making London the only international customer for that program.
The meeting comes as the Pentagon faces $500 billion in spending cuts over the coming decade, which will force senior leaders to make difficult choices. The British delegation arrives with particular experience in that area, having faced even deeper budget cuts — in percentage terms — over the past several years, forcing major reforms to force structure, organization and acquisition programs in that time.
“Getting value for money and efficiency is something we have focused a considerable amount of attention on, and we can offer them advice in that area,” Howarth said.
Still, the British budget is a fraction of that of the U.S. In fact, at $62.7 billion in 2011, the British budget is not much larger than the size of the annual cuts faced by the Americans. Under mandatory cuts for the remainder of 2013, the Pentagon is reducing its budget by $46 billion.
Yet the U.S. military could learn a thing or two from its British counterparts when it comes to consolidation, especially within the headquarters staff ranks, said Barry Pavel, the director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council here.
“I think [the U.S.] can learn a lot,” Pavel said. “There’s a lot of inefficiencies in our headquarters. They’ve taken jointness … to new levels that we haven’t yet done.”
But the British, having cut so deeply, are also in need. They are “going to have to leverage the U.S. to a greater degree, or try to,” Pavel said.
To get leaner and reduce overhead in recent years, the British military consolidated its war colleges into a single school and created an operational command center outside of London to oversee operations, according to retired British Army Brig. Gen. Ben Barry, now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank in London.
The U.S. Defense Department is already preparing for force structure reductions in the coming years and is re-evaluating its military strategy to determine how further budget cuts would affect its plans.
U.S. and British forces routinely train together and have fought side-by-side over the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, British Lt. Gen. Nick Carter serves as the deputy commander to U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, commander of NATO forces.
“On the day-to-day business of military cooperation, the relationship between the U.S. [NATO] commander and the British second in command is another good example of working in partnership,” Howarth said.
The two militaries regularly participate in personnel exchanges.
“PARTNERSHIP FOR WAR”: NATO MILITARY TRAINING AND WAR GAMES IN KAZAHKSTAN ON THE BORDERS WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA
Kazakh Defence Minister meets with NATO Special Representative for Caucasus and Central Asia
By A. Mukhtarov
“Kazakhstan is the most active partner of NATO in the region. The North Atlantic Alliance is appreciative of the training level of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan. We are interested in further enhancement of bilateral defence cooperation and will provide our full support,” James Appathurai said.
The annual ‘Steppe Eagle’ peacekeeping exercise is conducted on the territory of Kazakhstan with the participation of its military officers and representatives of foreign countries. In September 2012, the exercise was first conducted in the spirit of ‘Partnership for Peace’ with participation of units of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, the U.S., UK, Tajikistan, as well as representatives from Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, France, Switzerland and Ukraine.
Today in Astana, Kazakhstan. Defence Minister Adilbek Dzhaksybekov met with the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the NATO for the Caucasus and Central Asia James Appathurai and a new NATO officer on interaction with Central Asia Alexander Vinnikov, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Kazakhstan informed Trend.
“The Ministry of Defence welcomes the resumption of the activity of the officer on interaction in the region. I am sure it will contribute to the effective coordination of our cooperation with the Alliance,” said Adilbek Dzhaksybekov.
Training of peacekeeping units in order to ensure their interoperability is the priority of Kazakhstan in cooperation with NATO. Practical aspects are aimed at the development of the national peace-building potential, participation in the joint exercises and exchange of experience in planning, implementation and comprehensive support of peacekeeping operations,” the Kazakh Defence Minister noted.
“Kazakhstan is the most active partner of NATO in the region. The North Atlantic Alliance is appreciative of the training level of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan. We are interested in further enhancement of bilateral defence cooperation and will provide our full support,” James Appathurai said.
The annual ‘Steppe Eagle’ peacekeeping exercise is conducted on the territory of Kazakhstan with the participation of its military officers and representatives of foreign countries. In September 2012, the exercise was first conducted in the spirit of ‘Partnership for Peace’ with participation of units of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan, the U.S., UK, Tajikistan, as well as representatives from Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, France, Switzerland and Ukraine.
“We are interested in increasing the participation of units of NATO member states and partner countries in the exercise and are relying on the support of NATO in this issue,” the minister noted.
In order to teach NATO standards and procedures to military officers at the Kazakhstan ‘Partnership for Peace’ training centre at the Military Institute of Land Forces (KAZCENT) more than 30 courses and seminars for military officers are already being conducted. This is on the basis of KAZCENT including events such as courses on military terminology of English in multinational operations and NATO Military staff procedures.
RUSSIA AND CHINA TO CONDUCT THE BIGGEST MILITARY DRILLS OFF JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA IN JUNE 2013
(translated from a Chinese news source)
March 7, 2013
Russian Defense Ministry sources said Saturday, that the Russian Pacific Fleet and Beihai fleet have discussed holding real-live fire exercises at sea in June this year, in Japan’s Haidabide Bay.
In addition, the air army joint military exercises will be high-level multiple round.
Russia said the Russian Navy League exercises will be the largest, and may have more than 20 ships, tugs included. It is estimated that Russia will have 10 ships, China 16 ships, and 7 tug vessels.
Russian military experts said, the China Sea fleet will pass through the Tsushima Strait or the Korea Strait, and perhaps through the Soya Strait between Russia and Japan.
-
LARGE-SCALE RUSSIA-BELARUS WAR GAMES IN RESPONSE TO DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. MISSILE SHIELD IN EUROPE
Russia Starts Preparing for Zapad-2013 War Games
MOSCOW: This week the Russian Defense Ministry will start preparing for large-scale joint strategic military exercises with Belarus, scheduled for fall of 2013, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Monday.
“Strategic command and staff drills, to be held by [Russian] military districts this week, mark the first step in preparation for the Zapad-2013 exercises with Belarus,” Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting.
Russia and Belarus approved the schedule for Zapad-2013 drills in October last year.
The exercises will be held in September and will focus on practicing defense of the Russia-Belarus Union State in response to the deployment of a US missile shield in Europe.
The two-stage drills, which will also involve “rapid-reaction” units from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), will take place in Russia and Belarus.
Moscow and Minsk held similar large-scale military exercises in September 2009. They involved about 12,500 servicemen and up to 200 pieces of military hardware.
-
PUTIN ORDERS LARGE-SCALE MILITARY EXERCISES IN BLACK SEA
MOSCOW (Reuters) – President Vladimir Putin ordered the launch of large-scale Russian military exercises in the Black Sea region on Thursday, his spokesman said, in a move that may create tensions with Russia’s post-Soviet neighbors Ukraine and Georgia.
Putin issued the order to start the previously unannounced maneuvers at 4 a.m. Moscow time (12.00 a.m. EDT) as he flew back from an international summit in South Africa, his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters by telephone.
“These are large-scale unannounced test exercises,” Peskov said, adding that 36 warships and an unspecified number of warplanes would take part. “The main goal is to check the readiness and cohesion of the various units.”
He did not say how long the exercises would last.
Putin has stressed the importance of a strong and agile military since he returned to the presidency last May after four years as prime minister. In 13 years in power, he has often cited external threats when talking of the need for unity in Russia.
Russia’s Black Sea fleet, whose main base is in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol, was instrumental in a war with Georgia in 2008 over the Russian-backed breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Disputes with Kiev over Moscow’s continued lease of the Black Sea navy base have been a thorn in relations with its former Soviet neighbor.
Peskov said that Russia is under no obligation to warn neighbors ahead of time of plans to hold the air and sea military exercises as long as fewer than 7,000 servicemen participated in the maneuvers.
-
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, PUTIN REMINDED THE WORLD OF RUSSIA’S STRENGTH
By Adam Taylor | Business Insider
Mar. 28, 2013
-
Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s sudden announcement of enormous military exercises on the Black Sea has taken many by surprise, and many observers see the sudden announcement as Putin flexing Russia’s military muscles.
There was no international warning about the war games — even Russia’s military leaders were caught off guard by the announcement, which came at 4 a.m. Moscow time as Putin returned from Durban, South Africa, where he had attended a summit with Brazil, India, and China.
It’s not a small exercise either. Various reports say some 36 warships and almost 7,000 personnel will take place in the exercises on the Black Sea (it’s worth noting that any procedures with more than 7,000 troops would require Russia to notify other nations).
This video shows Russia’s preparations:
-
-
That such a big exercise would be announced so suddenly is unusual. Reuters notes that Putin has repeatedly called for a “strong and agile military” since returning to the presidency last year, and has pledged the biggest military buildup since Soviet times.
Recent military exercises in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea — described as the largest war games conducted by Russia in decades — were announced weeks in advance.
The location of the exercise may be important. Ukraine, with whom Russia has had a tense relationship in the past few years, sits on the Black Sea, as does Georgia, the small country with which Russia went to war in 2008. (Russia’s military is widely seen as having underperformed in that conflict.)
More broadly, the games may be an attempt to remind the Middle East that Russia is an important player. Some speculated that a similar war game in the Mediterranean last year was Russia’s bid to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria. If Bashar al-Assad loses his war against the Syrian rebels, Russia may well lose an important naval base in the country.
Russia has also shown a keen interest in tensions between Israel and Iran, apparently fearing the spread of Islamic fundamentalism near its southern borders (and Chechnya) — one curious WikiLeaks reference in 2010 alleged that Putin considered Iran Russia’s “biggest threat.”
-
RUSSIA’S SURPRISE MILITARY EXERCISES ALARM BLACK SEA NEIGHBORS
Russia’s surprise, large-scale military exercises on the Black Sea are raising alarm among some of its neighbors. Russian President Vladimir Putin sprung the exercises on his military at 4 am Thursday andshowed up in person, along with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, to observe the exercises on Friday. The exercises involve around 30 warships, 7,000 servicemembers and various armored vehicles and artillery.
But the Black Sea is a complex geopolitical environment: Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol, in on-again-off-again ally Ukraine. NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania also have naval forces on the sea, as of course does Russia’s foe Georgia. So the international response to the exercise wasn’t entirely positive. As RT put it, “The Russian naval drills came as a surprise not only to the Russian armed forces, but also for neighboring countries’ militaries as well, which were forced to rub sleep from their eyes and rush to their duties as up to 30 Russian battleships left port.”
Russian officials pointed out that there is nothing to prevent them from conducting these sorts of surprise drills. “According to international practice, exercises involving up to 7,000 people do not require us to inform our partners in advance,” said Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Nevertheless, the response from Tbilisi — which suffered the wrath of the fleet during the 2008 war over South Ossetia — was as negative as one would predict. The Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement expressing its “grave concern”:
Russia’s action runs contrary to the interests of stability and predictability in the European neighborhood. Georgia is alarmed by the unexpected, provocative activity of the Russian troops, as well as by the potential use of the facilities, weaponry and/or personnel of the occupation forces of the Russian Federation within Georgia’s internationally recognized borders in Abkhazia, Georgia and the Tskhinvali region, Georgia.http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66761
-
CHINA AND RUSSIA CONDUCT ‘SURPRISE’ MILITARY EXERCISES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
President Putin orders short-notice ‘rapid response’ exercise
China’s amphibious ship Jinggangshan is seen during a coordination training with a hovercraft in waters near south China’s Hainan Province, in the South China Sea.
On Monday, Vietnam accused China of opening fire on one of its fishing boats in the area. China denied the claim.
-
RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR BOMBERS CARRIED OUT HIGH-PROFILE TRAINING FLIGHT
By Bill Gertz | The Washington Times
Two Russian strategic nuclear bombers carried out a fourth high-profile training flight last week, flying near South Korea, where large-scale war games are under way, and near Japan and the U.S. military bases on Okinawa.
It was the fourth time since June 2012 that Russian bombers have run up against U.S. and allied air defense zones in the Pacific.
Defense officials told Inside the Ring that two Tu-95 Bear-H nuclear-capable bombers, Russia’s main nuclear cruise-missile delivery vehicle, were detected Friday in the Pacific Command theater of operations coming from a base in Russia’s Far East.
A Japanese Embassy spokesman confirmed that two Tu-95s were intercepted by Japanese fighter jets on March 15. He did not elaborate.
Pacific Command spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. DeDe Halfhill declined to provide details of the flights or say whether any U.S. interceptor jets were sent aloft to follow the bombers. She instead referred questions to the Russian, Japanese and South Korean governments, even though she acknowledged that the incident took place within the command’s area of responsibility.
It could not be learned whether South Korean interceptor jets were scrambled to trail the bombers.
The latest Russian strategic bomber flights near Okinawa, where U.S. Marines are deployed, followed a Feb. 12 incursion around Guam, July 4 bomber flights near the California coast, and practice bomber sorties near Alaska in June.
The failure of the Pacific Command to discuss the incident appears to be part of a new Pentagon policy of refusing to answer reporters’ questions about troubling developments that might undermine the Obama administration’s conciliatory policies toward both Russia and China. For example, Friday’s flights took place just over a month after two other Tu-95s flew around the U.S. Pacific island of Guam — a major hub for the U.S. military buildup in the region.
Earlier, a Pentagon spokeswoman referred a reporter to China’s communist government when asked about the country’s expanding nuclear forces, despite the Pentagon having a legal requirement to provide public information about those forces in its annual report to Congress on the Chinese military.
The Feb. 12 bomber flights were the first time the Russians had conducted such long-range strategic operations near Guam in more than 20 years. Yet, a military official described the bomber incursions as “routine.”
Guam was used by two U.S. B-52 strategic bombers for flights over South Korea on March 8 and March 15 as part of ongoing military exercises that Pentagon officials said demonstrated U.S. “extended deterrence” nuclear protection, in the face of growing nuclear threats from North Korea.
The earlier Russian bomber incident near California was also dismissed by military spokesmen as routine after two Bear H bombers on July 4 flew the closest to the U.S. West Coast that any Russian bomber had flown since the days of the Soviet Union.
Obama hit on missile defense
A senior member of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday wrote to President Obama, expressing concerns about the administration’s concessions to Russia on missile defense and revealing Moscow’s violations of current arms treaties.
“I am deeply concerned about your sudden shift in the U.S. missile defense strategy,” Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican and chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, stated in his letter to the president.
Mr. Rogers said the Pentagon’s decision to cancel deployment in Europe of the SM-3 IIB advanced missile-defense interceptor, which was opposed by Moscow, sends a signal of U.S. weakness.
The cancellation, announced Friday, is “unambiguously another concession” to the Russians on missile defense, similar to the 2009 decision to abandon deployment in Europe of more powerful ground-based interceptors that Russia also opposed.
Mr. Rogers said the decision on the SM-3 IIB came weeks before the administration’s defense budget submission to Congress and also prior to the upcoming visit to Moscow by National Security Adviser Thomas E. Donilon, who is said to be seeking to gauge Moscow’s willingness to engage in a new round of strategic arms cuts.
“Russia has been violently opposed to our missile defenses, specifically the Phase IV development of the SM-3 block IIB missile, almost since you announced it,” Mr. Rogers said in his letter.
“Indeed, Russia’s Chief of its General Staff Col. Gen. [Nikolai] Makarov, threatened to attack U.S. missile defenses in Europe. And now, your administration has terminated the SM-3 IIB, just as the Russians demanded.”
Mr. Rogers added that new arms talks are being sought despite “ongoing and significant concerns about Russian arms control compliance.” He did not elaborate. Mr. Rogers said he believes presidential advisers are urging Mr. Obama to announce a new push for deeper strategic nuclear cuts on the upcoming fourth anniversary of his April 5, 2009, speech in the Czech Republic capital Prague where he called for eliminating all nuclear weapons.
Army Maj. Gen. H.R. McMaster, a combat veteran of two Iraq wars and current commander of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, provided some candid assessments of U.S. military doctrine during a speech in Washington on Wednesday.
Gen. McMaster is the closest thing in the Army to a policy rock star and is regarded as an outspoken and innovative strategic thinker.
Some of the comments by the two-star general during a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies sounded indirectly critical of past U.S. military efforts in Iraq and current efforts in Afghanistan.
Gen. McMaster criticized what he termed the “raiding mentality” among some military strategists who argue that bombing or special operations forces will win wars fast and cheap, calling it “a fundamental unrealistic expectation.”
Another “wrong lesson” of the past 12 years of warfare is the exaggerated benefit of using proxy military or security forces, Gen. McMaster said.
In Iraq, the U.S. military built up Iraqi police and security forces and later found that the Iraqis were “largely captured by Shia Islamist militias that were to some degree under the direction of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran,” Gen. McMaster said.
Some U.S.-trained Iraqis were involved in ethnic-cleansing campaigns against opponents, while other Iraqi forces defected and joined al Qaeda, he said. In Afghanistan, some U.S.-trained Afghan security forces were taken over by local criminal networks, Gen. McMaster said.
RUSSIANS CONDUCT HUGE NUKE DRILL
Russian nuclear forces hold large exercise involving movement of strategic and tactical warheads
BY: Bill Gertz | Washington Free Beacon
March 5, 2013
Russian nuclear forces conducted a major exercise last month that tested the transport of both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons near Europe, according to United States officials.
The exercise raised concerns inside the Pentagon and with the U.S. European Command because it was the largest exercise of its kind in 20 years and involved heightened alert status of Russian nuclear forces.
The nuclear drills were part of other military maneuvers in Russia carried out between Feb. 17 and Feb. 21.
The exercises followed a recent surge in Russian strategic bomber flights that include a recent circling of the U.S. Pacific island of Guam by two Tu-95 Bear bomber and simulated bombing runs by Tu-95s against Alaska and California in June and July.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley P. Miller sought to play down the nuclear exercise but declined to comment on the movement of nuclear weapons and whether nuclear forces went on a heightened state of alert. “We don’t comment on intelligence matters,” he said.
Miller said the nuclear forces maneuvers were “nothing to be concerned about because the Russians, like us, have routine exercises and inspections.”
However, a U.S. official said the exercise was a concern within the U.S. national security community because of the scale of the exercise and the number of weapons being moved. “Certainly it’s a concern when you have this kind of exercise going on,” this official said.
The official said another worry is that Russia appears to be increasing the readiness of its nuclear forces at a time when the U.S. nuclear complex is in urgent need of upgrading and the military is facing sharp automatic defense cuts that could affect U.S. nuclear forces readiness in the future.
Contractors and employees of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the nuclear weapons complex, were notified of possible furloughs under automatic spending cuts that went into effect March 1, the Hill reported Thursday.
Miller said the administration remains committed to a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. “The administration will ensure continued focus on maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent as part of the president’s comprehensive approach to nuclear security,” under sequester, as the automatic spending cuts are called.
He quoted past Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as saying that no decisions on how cuts will be made but that “nothing will be off the table in our review of how best to proceed.”
According to the officials, the exercise involved Russia’s secretive 12th Main Directorate of the Defense Ministry, known by its acronym as 12th GUMO, the main military unit in charge of all nuclear weapons.
Details of the nuclear exercise are classified, but officials said the 12th GUMO transported a large number of nuclear arms from some of its nuclear munitions depots to storage sites during the exercises.
It could not be learned if the Russians provided advance notification of the strategic exercises.
Declassified U.S. intelligence reports have identified three large nuclear storage facilities near Europe, including one that is located miles from the intersection of the Rusisan, Latvian, and Belarusian borders. Two other nuclear storage complexes close to Europe are located at Zhukovka, near Belarus, and at Golovchino, near the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.
The nuclear training coincided with the visit to Moscow by Rose Gottemoeller, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, to discuss a new round of U.S.-Russian strategic arms talks.
The exercise did not come up during the meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Berlin Feb. 26.
Arms control experts say the Russians are required to notify the United States under the New START treaty of major strategic nuclear exercises that involve bomber flights.
It is not known whether the nuclear weapons were transported by air, rail, or truck during the 12th GUMO exercise.
Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov mentioned the nuclear exercise Feb. 22 when he said a surprise inspection of both conventional and nuclear forces was held.
Gerasimov said the exercises involved the 12th GUMO and the Central and Southern military districts and that they were the largest maneuvers of its kind in 20 years.
The drills began with orders for forces to go to “higher states of combat readiness and carry out combat training missions,” the website Russian Defense Policy reported. The exercises were also reported by the Voice of Russia and the Russian Defense Ministry website.
Several hundred pieces of equipment, 7,000 troops, and 48 aircraft took part, the general said.
The drills also involved moving forces to exercise areas far from normal deployment locations.
Gerasimov said the 98th Air-Assault Division at Ivanovo and the 4th Air Forces and Air Defense Command near Rostov performed well.
The troops were transported in IL-76 jets to an area near Chelyabinsk, which has large nuclear facilities, in difficult weather conditions.
Forces of a long-range aviation group and air defense also conducted bombing exercises and performed well, Gerasimov said.
The general did not say how the 12th GUMO fared in the exercises but said that overall “a number of systematic deficiencies in the state of combat readiness and lever of personnel training” were uncovered.
A 2008 State Department cable described the 12th GUMO as one of several key military units with direct control over nuclear weapons. “An attack or exploitation of any one of these could leave elements of the arsenal vulnerable,” the cable said. “While the impact on the U.S. might not be immediate, the danger of such elements falling into terrorists’ or extremists’ hands could pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States.”
Another cable said nine 12th GUMO sites were being modernized in 2008.
RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BOMBER CONDUCTS PRACTICE STRIKES ON U.S. MISSILE DEFENSES IN ASIA
Russia Tu-22M Backfire bomber / Wikipedia
-
BY: Bill Gertz | Washington Free Beacon
April 5, 2013
A Russian bomber recently carried out simulated cruise missile attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Asia, raising new questions about Moscow’s goal in future U.S.-Russian defense talks.
According to U.S. officials, a Russian Tu-22M Backfire bomber on Feb. 26 simulated firing air-launched cruise missiles at an Aegis ship deployed near Japan as part of U.S. missile defenses.
A second mock attack was conducted Feb. 27 against a ground-based missile defense site in Japan that officials did not identify further.
The Pentagon operates an X-band missile defense radar on the northern tip of Japan that is designed to monitor North Korean missile launches and transmit the data to missile-firing ships.
The bomber targeting comes as Russia is building up forces in the Pacific by modernizing submarines and building a spy ship specifically for intelligence-gathering against U.S. missile defenses.
Officials said it was not clear why the Russians conducted the practice strikes. However, the simulations may indicate Moscow has targeted its offensive ballistic missiles on Japan or U.S. military bases in the region.
U.S. missile defenses in Asia currently are at a heightened alert status as a result of tensions with North Korea. The communist state has threatened to conduct nuclear missile attacks on the United States and South Korea.
The incidents were detected by U.S. intelligence-gathering systems in the region and reported recently inside the Pentagon.
“As a matter of policy we do not comment on matters of intelligence,” Lt. Col. Catherine Wilkinson said when asked about the Backfire bomber incident.
The Tu-22 bomber can carry up to three air-launched Kh-22 land attack cruise missiles. The bomber has a range of about 2,500 miles.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney said the Backfire targeting is troubling.
“Russia continues to conduct aggressive offensive missile training in the Pacific against U.S. and Allied Forces,” McInerney said.
“We should understand that they look at ‘reset’ differently than we do,” said the retired three-star general, who once commanded forces in Alaska. “They look at it as regaining their previous USSR position as a superpower while this administration is moving towards unilateral disarmament.”
Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy during the George W. Bush administration, said it is difficult to assess why the Russians carried out the simulated strikes.
Edelman said practice runs may be “a demonstration of continued Russia opposition to and hyping of their animosity toward U.S. missile defense deployments globally.”
“In the wake of the administration’s ‘restructuring’’—read cancelation—of the SM-3 Block IIB which was supposedly the most neuralgic part for Moscow of the administration’s [European Phased Adaptive Approach], the Russians are signaling that they are pocketing that concession and upping the ante in their opposition to missile defense—not just in Europe, but globally,” Edelman told the Free Beacon in an email.
The Russians in the past have said their opposition to missile defense was not limited to Europe but included global missile defense deployments, he said. “This is just a symbol of how much that remains the case.”
The latest bomber encounter in Asia comes weeks before White House National Security adviser Thomas Donilon will visit Moscow in an effort to restart stalled missile defense talks with the Russians, who for the past four years have demanded legal restrictions on U.S. missile defenses in Europe.
Donilon is expected to seek a Russian return to the negotiating table after the Pentagon announced last month it is scrapping plans for a high-powered variant of the Navy’s SM-3 missile interceptor called the Block IIB. The cancellation was widely viewed as a concession to Russia. The Russians are opposed to placing interceptors in Europe and claim the missile will be used against Russian offensive missiles.
The bomber targeting of U.S. missile defenses also followed stepped up Russian bomber activities targeting other U.S. missile defense sites, including ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California. A large-scale Russian military exercise in the Arctic in June included flights by two Tu-95 Bear bombers that Russian military officials said had simulated attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.
Another pair of Tu-95s flew on July 4 the closest to the California coast that a Russian bomber had flown since the days of the Soviet Union, when strategic bomber flights near U.S. coasts were a routine feature of the Cold War.
Russian targeting of missile defenses also comes as Moscow’s GRU military intelligence announced April 1 that it would deploy a new reconnaissance ship in the Pacific to spy on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska and Hawaii.
The ship Yuri Ivanov will begin service next year, military sources told the state-run Izvestia news outlet.
One source said the main mission of the ship would be to monitor U.S. missile defense components in Alaska and Hawaii. The ship will be outfitted with electronic sensors that allow detection, interception, and analysis of signals from radar, weapons systems, and communications.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during a telephone call March 25 that Moscow wanted to resume missile defense talks.
Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement that Shoygu “expressed his desire to reconvene missile defense discussions with the U.S. at the deputy minister level.”
“Secretary Hagel agreed and reiterated that this is an important part of U.S.-Russian relations,” Little said. “He assured Minister Shoygu that these discussions would continue and be carried forward by under secretary of defense for policy Dr. Jim Miller.”
Russian accounts of the conversation said the Russians plan to discuss the U.S. and NATO missile defense for Europe.
“We are very interested in how the situation surrounding the European missile-defense will develop, and our minister proposed reconvening regular consultations on this matter at deputy defense minister level: Anatoly Antonov from the Russian side and James Miller from the American side,” Shoygu’s deputy Anatoly Antonov said, according to the RIA Novosti news agency.
U.S. plans for missile defenses in Europe include a phased approach that will employ a combination of ships and ground-based missile defenses designed mainly to counter attacks from Iranian missiles.
Hagel announced last month that the Pentagon would give up plans for the SM-3 IIB and instead increase the number of ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska from 30 to 44 over the next several years.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement after that announcement saying the United States continues to bolster global missile defenses, and therefore there is a need to work out “reliably legally binding guarantees” that missile defenses in Europe will not be targeted at Russian missiles.
Moscow has said the European defenses pose a threat to Russian security and late last year a Russian general threatened preemptive attacks on U.S. missile defense sites in any future crisis.
One venue for the missile defense talks could be the international conference on European security set to begin May 23 in Moscow, when Hagel could attend, according a Russian official quoted in press reports.
According to a Russian source quoted by Izvestya, the Russian Navy intelligence directorate urgently needs the spy ship because its surveillance vessels are old and outdated and ships can get closer to intelligence targets than aircraft. Ships also can be stationed for several days before being discovered.
“We now have practically no specialist reconnaissance ships left,” the source said. “Those that we have were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are in poor condition. The Yuri Ivanov is a ship with a fundamentally new, highly productive reconnaissance complex.”
The Ivanov is classified as a special communications ship 95 meters long with a displacement of 4,000 tons. It will be deployed with Russia’s Pacific fleet.
Moscow also announced Apr. 1 that it would modernize three Oscar II diesel powered, nuclear cruise missile submarines as part of a modernization of the Russian Pacific Fleet.
The submarines were built for attacking aircraft carrier strike groups and their weaponry included 24 SS-N-19 missiles and 28 torpedo tube launched missiles and torpedoes. A Russian military news outlet reported that the Oscar II modernization would include adding supersonic SS-N-26 anti-ship cruise missiles.
Former chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky told a conference earlier this week in Moscow that the United States has not abandoned strategic plans for preventive nuclear strikes on both Russia and China. Baluyevsky said U.S. missile defenses are designed to prevent attacks after a U.S. first-strike nuclear attack, Interfax AVN reported April 2.
Former Russian Strategic Rocket Forces commander Col. Gen. Victor Yesin at the same conference said Russian offensive missiles would be able to overcome any U.S. missile defense system.
Yesin said any attempts to negotiate a new treaty with the United States like the now-abandoned 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty will fail.
“Whether we like it or not, the Americans will build their missile defense,” Yesin said. “We will be unable to make them stop. Any attempt to force the Americans to abandon or at least sign a new missile defense treaty in the format of 1972 is a lost cause; that will never happen.”
RUSSIAN WAR GAMES SEND A STRONG MESSAGE AGAINST NATO INTERVENTION IN SYRIA?
Is there a connection between events in Syria (maybe even US tension with North Korea) and Russia’s impromptu Black Sea war games that started on March 28, 2013?
While on his way from Durban in South Africa, where the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — announced they were forming a new development bank to challenge the IMF and World Bank, Russia’s Vladimir Putin gave the go ahead for unscheduled war games in the Black Sea. By themselves the games mean little, but in a global context they mean a lot.
According to the Kremlin, the war games involved about 7,000 Russian servicemen; Russian Special Forces, Russian Marines, and airborne rapid deployment troops. All of Russia’s different services were involved and used the exercises to test their interoperability. Over thirty Russian warships based out of the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol in the Crimean Peninsula and the Russian port of Novorossiysk in Krasnodar Krai will be participating. The objective of the games are to show that Russia could mobilize for any event at a moments notice.
The war games surprised the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Who even complained the Russian war games started in the Black Sea without prior notice. In fact, NATO asked Russia to be more open about its moves and give NATO Headquarters in Brussels notice of its military movements in the future. Alexander Vershbow, the American Deputy Secretary General of NATO, even demanded “maximum transparency” from Russia. One may ask, why the rattled bones?
Russian response to war plans against the Syrians?
Is it mere coincidence that Russia is flexing its muscles after NATO revealed it was developing contingency plans for a Libya-style intervention in Syria on March 20? Two days later, Israel and Turkey ended their diplomatic row through a timely agreement that was supposedly brokered by US President Barack Obama in twenty minutes while he was visiting Israel. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that with Obama’s help a deal was made with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan to end the diplomatic rift over the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara in 2010.
Days later, this event was followed by the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) — a phoney opposition organization constructed by the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — being ceremoniously given Syria’s seat at the Arab League. In what appears to be an attempt at repeating the Libya scenario, the SNC is being recognized as the government of Syria. At the Arab League summit, the SNC’s leader Moaz Al-Khatib immediately called for NATO military intervention in coordination with Qatar’s call for regime change and military intervention in Damascus on March 26.
In a stage-managed move, the puppet SNC has asked the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and NATO to enforce a no-fly zone with the aim of creating a SNC-controlled emirate or enclave in northern Syria. Al-Khatib has announced that he has talked to US Secretary of State John Kerry to use the NATO Patriot Missiles stationed in Turkey to create the no-fly zone over northern Syria. Effectively what he is talking about is the balkanization of Syria. Kerry seems to be on top of it. Victoria Nuland, the spokeswoman of the US Department of State, said the US is considering the request about imposing a no-fly zone. Even earlier, Kerry made a surprise visit to Baghdad and threatened the federal government in Iraq to fall into line with Washington’s regime change plans against Syria. He said he wanted the Iraqis to check Iranian passenger planes heading to Syria for weapons, but much more was said.
The American Empire’s satraps are all on the move. Qatar and Saudi Arabia no longer hide the fact that they are arming and funding the insurgents in Syria. In February, the UK and France lobbied the rest of the European Union to lift its Syrian arms embargo, so that they can openly arm the anti-government foreign fighters and militias that are trying to topple the Syrian government. Israel and Turkey have been forced to mend fences for the sake of the Empire’s war on the Syrians.
Obama realigns Israel and Turkey against Syria
The Israeli and Turkish rapprochement conveniently fits the aligning chessboard. Obama’s visit to Israel was about imperial politics to maintain the American Empire. As two hostile neighbours of Syria, Tel Aviv and Ankara will have deeper cooperation in the Empire’s objectives to topple the Syrian government. All of a sudden, the governments in both countries started complaining in line with one another about how the humanitarian situation in Syria was threatening them. In reality, Israel is not hosting any Syrian refugees (and oppresses Syrians under its occupation in the Golan) whereas Turkey has actually neglected many of its legal and financial obligations to the Syrian refugees it hosts on its territory and has tried to whitewash this by labeling them as foreign “guests.”
According to Agence France-Presse, the Israelis have even opened a military field hospital to help the insurgents topple the Syrian government. The military facility is located in an area named Fortification 105 in Syria’s Israeli-occupied Golan Heights (originally referred to as the Syrian Heights in Israel). It is essentially a support base for anti-government forces and only the tip of the iceberg in regards to Israeli involvement in Syria. Israel’s January strikes on Syria were the fruits of the cooperation between the Israelis and insurgent militias.
Sensing the suspicious eyes gazing at the Turkish government and perhaps getting unnerved by the Kremlin’s muscle flexing, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has rejected the claims that Tel Aviv and Ankara were closing ranks against Syria. Davutoglu must have been unaware of what was said in Israel about their rapprochement. Even though Netanyahu vowed never to apologize for the killing of Turkey’s citizens on the Mavi Marmara, Tel Aviv’s apology to Turkey was publicly justified by the Israeli government on the basis of addressing Syria through coordination with Turkey. Many of the suspicious eyes that turned to look at Erdogan’s government over the deal with Israel are Turkish. Davutoglu actually lied for domestic consumption, knowing full well that the Turkish public would be outraged to know that Prime Minister Erdogan was really normalizing ties with Israel to topple the Syrian government.
The message(s) of the Russian war games
The American Empire is arranging the geopolitical chessboard with is satraps in its ongoing war on Syria. Perhaps it plans on using Israel to do a re-play of the Suez Crisis. In 1956, after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, the UK and France drew a plan with Israel to annex the Suez Canal by getting Israel to attack Egypt and then claiming to intervene militarily as concerned parties who wanted to keep the Suez Canal safe and open for international maritime traffic. A new assault against Syria under the banners of the Israelis is possible and could be used as an excuse for a Turkish and NATO “humanitarian invasion” that could result in the creation of a northern humanitarian buffer zone (or a broader war).
A pattern can be depicted from all these events. At the start of 2013, Russia held major naval drills in the Eastern Mediterranean against a backdrop of tension between Moscow and the US-led NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) coalition that has been destabilizing Syria. After the US and its anti-Syrian coalition threatened to intervene militarily and deployed Patriot missiles on Turkey’s southern border with Syria, a Russian naval flotilla was dispatched off the Syrian coast to send a strong message to Washington not to have any ideas of starting another war. In turn, the US and its allies tried to save face by spreading rumours that the Kremlin was preparing to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria, because the Syrian government was going to collapse and the situation was going to get critical.
Paralleling the Russian war games in the Black Sea, the Russian Air Force held long-range flights across Russia. This included flights by Russian nuclear strategic bombers. On the other end of Eurasia, China also conducted its own surprise naval war games in the South China Sea. While the US and its allies portrayed the Chinese moves as a threat to Vietnam over disputed territory in the South China Sea, the timing of the naval deployment could be linked to either Syria (or North Korea) and coordinated with Russia to warn the US to keep the international peace.
In a sign of the decline of the American Empire, just before the Russian war games in the Black Sea, all the increasingly assertive BRICS leaders warned the US against any adventurism in Syria and other countries. The Russian and Chinese muscle flexing are messages that tell Washington that Beijing and Moscow are serious and mean what they say. At the same time, these events can be read as signs that the world-system is coming under new management.
RUSSIAN PLANE REHEARSED ATTACK ON SWEDEN
Two heavy bombers
Two of the plan, according to Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, heavy bomber Tu-22M3, the NATO-called “Backfire”. The bomber was protected by four fighters. At two o’clock in the morning was the plan above Gotska sandön, 30-40 kilometers outside Sweden’s territorial waters.
- I can confirm that there were two bombers – Tn-22 with fighter escort of Su-27 aircraft. They remained in international airspace at Gotska sandön and implemented some form of exercise. Then they turned back the way they had come, says Anders Silwer operation manager at the Swedish Armed Forces to Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.
What they practiced wants he can not tell.
“Do not know if they practiced attacks on Sweden”
But according to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet sources shared the plan into two Tater and conducted mock attacks on two military installations. A near Stockholm and one in southern Sweden.
- We do not know about Russian aircraft were practicing some attacks against Sweden. They practice with their aircraft like Sweden practice with their aircraft, says Anders Silwer to Expressen.se.
Sweden then had no aircraft on standby then?
- No, we had made a choice not to have it. It’s part of how we see the entire emergency system. Normally we have 24 hours a day all year round people watching our radars. Then we make a judgment about which parts of the day we will have aircraft ready to start.
Anders Silwer also said at a press conference on Monday that it is not certain that Sweden would have sent up aircraft if they were available. He also said that although no aircraft were ready to start so they could be sent up within hours if necessary.
“It would be irrational”
Although it took NATO and Denmark a different decision and acted quickly. Two Danish F16s took off from their base in Lithuania. They could not catch the Russian plan, but shaded them.
Officially, Sweden well prepared against military attack.
Armed Forces’ readiness to be “immediately available”, the parliament has decided.
- The safety, emergency preparedness and defense policy is aimed at all times, day and night, be prepared for the unpredictable can happen, said Defense Minister Karin Enstrom (M) in January at People and Defense national conference in Salen.
According to Anders Silwer are still.
- I can not see in front of me that we would be prepared at all joints everywhere all the time, it would be irrational, he says to Expressen.se.
“It is unfortunate”
Now comes the criticism from politicians.
- This is of course an exceptionally serious event. The fact that Russian bomber exercises on Swedish territory has not been used for two decades, says Liberal Party’s defense expert Allan Widman in Malmö to Expressen.
But the reality is it is another. Armed Forces can not send up planes, the bomber approaches the Swede’s territory.
- It is unfortunate that one of Sweden’s direction can not get up on time, says Karlis Neretnieks, former rector of the National Defence College to Expressen.
- There is a danger that you can not go up and identify a plan. It is a basic readiness to wear. You never know what can happen otherwise. One can compare this to 11 September in the U.S., it would be happy just to have been a hijacked plane and this is serious, continuing Karlis Nerentnieks.
“Russians shows muscles”
More experts are critical of the Defence Forces’ readiness. Allan Widman think it is serious that there was no emergency at the event.
- It is not an option or the opportunity for us to protect our air space, but an obligation to do so at any given time, says Allan Widman.
The flight incident would occur at precisely Easter went further to predict. Russia had warned that they would hold a major exercise in the air at the time, writes Swedish Dagbladet today.
- The Russians have begun to behave more aggressively and that they are flying over the Baltic Sea and Norwegian Sea are nothing new. It is a way for the Russians to show the muscles and it is uncomfortable, says Johan Tunberger Expressen.
The criticism refuted however by the armed forces.
- We perceived the plan as a Russian exercise flights over the Baltic, they should not have been over Sweden but should have turned back, said Philip Simon, press secretary to the armed forces to Expressen.
You should not have had preparedness in the event. What do you say about that?
- There is nothing that I know of.
Practiced attacks on England
Russian bombers have for some time made the corresponding exercise attacks on England. Bomber regularly go up over the Kola Peninsula and down against the British Terriers countless water and making approaches.
- They have canceled at the last moment and turned aside, says a source with very good insight into intelligence.
Approach were against England have been known for some time within the Swedish Armed Forces Management.
The first indications of Swedish defense that Russia has become much more aggressive and provocative against England was already last year.
RUSSIAN BOMBERS ESCORTED BY SU-27 FLANKERS SIMULATE NIGHT ATTACK ON SWEDEN
Was Sweden almost under attack? A group of Russian aircraft, including two strategic bombers, which can carry nuclear weapons, practiced night attacks on the Baltic coast to the most important objects in the Swedish defense. Why it did not cause any reaction of Sweden? It was Holy Saturday. The pilots had a day off, there was no aircraft ready to take off, saying the military. NATO has sent only two Danish F-16 in order to observed the practice and marked their presence. Swedes should always have a prepared combat aircraft in the event of similar incidents. However, Major-General Anders Silwer of command of the armed forces admitted that in Sweden there is no constantly prepared air units.
No Swedish QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) was taken at this time.
It was brought to my attention that this incident occurred on the night of Mar. 29, 2013, when Russian military aircraft simulated a large-scale bomb run on Sweden. The episode got much media attention among the Swedish media outlets on Apr. 22, when more details about the simulated attack surfaced. According to the Svenska Dagbladet, after midnight on Mar. 29 (Good Friday), the Swedish radars detected six fast planes coming from the east, originating from the St. Petersburg area and over flying the Gulf of Finland. The route the aircraft were flying was far from being suspect: Russian bombers periodically fly across the Baltic Sea to reach the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, located between Lithuania and Poland. However, on Mar. 29, the two Tu-22M3 Backfire heavy bombers, capable to carry cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, and their four Su-27 Flanker fighter jets escort got dangerously close to the Swedish airspace and, at 2 AM local time, they skirted Gotland island, some 30-40 kilometers off the Swedish territorial waters.After they carried out their mock attacks (on targets in the Stockholm area and Southern Sweden, according to Swedish military sources who talked to Svenska Dagbladet) they turned back and returned towards Russia.
The episode is similar to those Soviet Union’s exercises typical of the Cold War, when bombers carrying the typical Red Star flew quite close to the Swedish airspace boundaries and got intercepted by Swedish interceptors. Such “visits” ended in 1992 but returned in 2011 when Putin resumed the long-range flights of its strategic bombers. Even if at least two JAS-39 Gripen should always be in QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) and ready for take off in case of alarm, quite surprisingly there were no interceptors ready on this Friday night.
Although the Russian military activity didn’t come unannounced. As said, it was neither the first time nor will be the last to see Moscow’s bombers, fighter jets performing simulated attacks on strategic targets around the world. The real question should be WHY? What world image does the Russians have when they practice attacks on Sweden? This is just what I’ve been saying all along. Don`t trust the Russians. By now they have the absolute strongest army in Europe. And combine that with these recurrent Russian boasting performances, one can see that they are planning something.
MINISTRY: RUSSIA NOT OBLIGED TO NOTIFY WEST OF WAR GAMES
en.rian.ru
April 1, 2013
Russia was not obligated to notify Western countries beforehand of its recent snap military exercises, a top Russian Defense Ministry official said Monday.
“The mechanism of checks today is such that we only need to notify Western countries when we hold planned events,” Sergei Ryzhkov, the chief of the ministry’s treaty implementation department, told journalists.
“If exercises occur suddenly, we may notify them [other countries] only when the exercises begin,” Ryzhkov said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered snap drills on Thursday, as concerns persist over the combat readiness of the armed forces in Russia.
The Black Sea exercise, which ended on Sunday, involved up to 7,000 military personnel, including rapid deployment, airborne and special task forces, more than 30 warships, about 250 armored vehicles, up to 20 pieces of artillery and 20 aircraft.
The unscheduled exercise was the second in the span of two months and followed a major shake-up at the top of a military establishment demoralized by persistent evidence of rampant corruption.
Ryzhkov added that in line with the 2011 Vienna Document on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures, other countries should be notified of war games only when at least 9,000 troops participate in the drills.
Furthermore, when the number of troops taking part in the drills equals or exceeds 13,000, such exercises should be subject to foreign observation, he said.
RUSSIA PRESSES AHEAD WITH THE REBUILDING OF ITS MILITARY FORCES
By Clara Weiss
2 April 2013
President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials have repeatedly stressed that the upgrading of Russia’s military capacity is a top priority of Kremlin policy and that Russia is preparing for armed conflicts.
The Kremlin is currently carrying out a comprehensive modernization programme of the army and navy. The military rearmament coincides with increased attacks on the working class and fierce conflicts within the ruling elite.
In a speech in February on Russia’s “Day of Defence of the Fatherland”, Putin declared: “Ensuring Russia has a reliable military force is the priority of our state policy. Unfortunately, the present world is far from being peaceful and safe. Long obsolete conflicts are being joined by new, but no less difficult, ones. Instability is growing in vast regions of the world.”
At a meeting of the Defence Ministry in late February, Putin reiterated that the army must be prepared within the next five years to meet the “present danger.”
In early February, the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Red Army over Hitler’s Wehrmacht in the Battle of Stalingrad was the occasion for a nationalist campaign glorifying Stalin. By such means, the regime is responding to growing international conflicts while seeking to divert attention from social tensions and discontent with the Kremlin’s policy at home.
Russian military spending has risen steadily in recent years. The current defence programme is the largest since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The plan is to increase military spending from 2011 to 2020 by 11 percent each year, raising the proportion of modern weapons in the army to 70 percent by 2020. Most of the Russian army’s weapons date back to Soviet times.
Expected total expenditure is around $657 billion. In 2012, the Kremlin spent some 908 billion rubles ($31 billion) on the military.
An important part of the rearmament program is the expansion and modernization of the Russian fleet. By 2020, the Kremlin plans to spend some $132 billion to upgrade its navy and increase its fleet of nuclear-armed submarines.
This would enable the Russian fleet to project a stronger presence in both the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Russia is currently negotiating with Ukraine regarding refurbishing the Black Sea fleet, which is stationed in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol in the Crimea.
Last Thursday, the Russian navy staged surprise war games in the Black Sea, with 30 warships, military aircraft and armored vehicles and 7,000 marines. President Putin personally witnessed the unscheduled drill from a helicopter. Neighboring Georgia condemned the exercises, stating that they ran “contrary to the interests of stability and predictability in the European neighborhood.”
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Russia must project a permanent military presence in the Mediterranean in order to defend its interests in the region. On March 17, Shoigu announced that a permanent group of five to six combat ships would be dispatched to the Mediterranean Sea.
At this point, the only base for the Russian navy in the Mediterranean is located in the Syrian port city of Tartus. During last month’s negotiations over the bailout of the Cypriot banks, the government of Cyprus allegedly offered the Kremlin the use of a naval base in Limassol (See: “Europe threatens Cyprus with bankruptcy in power struggle with Russia”). This was vehemently opposed by the European Union, most notably Germany, which has lined up behind the US-led campaign to carry out regime-change in Syria by means of a sectarian civil war.
The Kremlin weapons programme is part of an accelerating international armaments race. China is also sharply increasing military spending, while the US continues to outspend the rest of the world when it comes to the military. The remilitarization is being fueled by the neo-colonial wars in the Middle East and North Africa, which have exacerbated tensions between the great powers.
The NATO-sponsored civil war in Syria has, in particular, raised tensions between the US and Russia and worsened Moscow’s relations with Germany and France.
Russia sees its economic and geopolitical interests endangered by the Syrian conflict and the war preparations against Iran, which could destabilize the Caucasus and Central Asia. (See: “Syria’s civil war destabilising the Caucasus”). An escalation of the war in Syria and a war by the Western powers and Israel against Iran threaten to bring military conflicts to the borders of the Russian Federation. The Russia-Georgia war in the summer of 2008, which proved that significant parts of the Russian army were insufficiently prepared, served as the starting point for an expansion of military spending.
Since then, conscription has been reduced from two years to one, changes have been made in the command structure, and a number of generals and officers have been fired. Nevertheless, the Russian army finds itself in a desperate state, with the poorly trained soldiers using hopelessly outdated weapons from the Soviet era.
The level of suicides in the military is extremely high. Reports of brutal treatment of soldiers by their superiors are commonplace. The food is so bad that some soldiers go hungry or eat rancid food.
The increased military spending and reform measures have created tensions in the Kremlin and within the ruling elite. Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin resigned in 2011 because he disagreed with the scale of the military budget. In contrast, the current finance minister, Anton Siluanov, has made the military rearmament programme his ministry’s main priority.
Last November, Putin fired Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who had overseen the military reforms for several years. Serdyukov had encountered strong opposition from the officer corps, and the arms industry also opposed him, mainly because he had imported armaments from the West. The current re-equipping will rely primarily on the Russian defence industry.
In February, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said the weapons program should be combined with an expansion of the arms industry and the construction of new weapons factories, in part to help overcome the dependence of the Russian economy on oil and gas exports.
After the United States, Russia is the second largest arms supplier in the world. It significantly increased its arms exports last year. By far the largest importer of Russian weapons is India, but the Kremlin also supplies the Assad regime in Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. In February, Anatoly Isaikin, head of the state arms company Rosoboronexport, said that Russia would be delivering air defence systems and military equipment to Syria.
However, according to Isaikin, Russia is not selling fighter jets to the Syrian government, as reported in the Western media.
The upgrading of Russia’s military capacity is connected to social attacks on the working class and a strengthening of the repressive state apparatus at home. The budget for 2013-2015, which provides for draconian cuts in education and health, allocates about a third of total government expenditures to the military. This brings the share of spending on the military and state forces from 5.6 percent to 6.1 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product.
Last year, Putin declared that he regarded Stalin’s industrialization policy of the 1930s and 1940s as a role model. A “re-industrialization” of the economy will supposedly reduce dependence on commodity exports through increased exploitation of the working class. Already, many Russian workers earn less than their counterparts in China.
HERE’S RUSSIA’S NEXT-GENERATION STEALTH STRATEGIC BOMBER
By David Cenciotti | The Aviationist
RUSSIA TO GET NEW ICBM LATER THIS YEAR
RS-24 Yars ballistic missiles
-
MOSCOW, April 18, 2013 (RIA Novosti) – The first modernized intercontinental ballistic missile, Yars-M, will enter service with Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) later this year, RVSN Commander Col. Gen. Sergei Karavayev said on Thursday.
A defense industry source previously told RIA Novosti the Armed Forces will take delivery of a fifth-generation Yars-M missile before the end of the current year.
Karavayev declined to provide any details, including the missile’s specifications.
The existing RS-24 Yars (NATO reporting name, SS-29) is a MIRV’ed ICBM that is heavier than the Topol-M (SS-27 Stalin) and can carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads.
The RVSN previously said that the Topol-M and RS-24 ballistic missiles will be the mainstay of the ground-based component of Russia’s nuclear triad and would account for no less than 80 percent of the RVSN’s arsenal by 2016.
Karavayev also said the Tatishchevo RVSN Division, near the city of Saratov in southwestern Russia, at present has 60 Topol-M missile systems.
The Topol-M missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 km), is said to be immune to any current and planned US antiballistic missile defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.
By 2020, the RVSN are expected to be equipped with over 170 Topol-Ms (mobile and silo-based), as well as 30 SS-19 and 108 RS-24 missile defense systems in nine divisions.
RUSSIAN NAVY TO RECEIVE NEW INVISIBLE SHIPS
By Anatoly Miranovsky | Pravda.Ru
MAY 14, 2013
Russia has recently unveiled its Project 1239 rocket ship to the world. Representing Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, the unique missile hovercraft “Bora” took part in the international exhibition of defense industry AIDEF 2013, which was held in Istanbul on May 7-10. The newest Russian rocket ships of this type will soon turn 20 years old.
In addition to the naval equipment, Russia showed a wide collection for all types of armed forces. Visitors of the exhibition could see more than 200 promising models of Russian military products.
The first project of this type appeared in 1942, when at a session of the Military Council under the chairmanship of Joseph Stalin, rocket designer Chelomei offered to equip Soviet Navy torpedo boats with jet rockets that would allow fast and nimble boats sink enemy’s large surface ships. The project was recognized as a promising one, but officials decided that there was no time to conduct experiments in the field.
In 1967, when Israel in a brilliant fashion destroyed armies of Arab states during the Six Day War, the Navy of the Jewish state lost its flagship Erlan destroyer. It was sunk by a salvo from a small missile boat of the naval forces of Egypt. That local victory of Egyptians once again reminded how dangerous small and fast missile boats could be.
The emergence of missile hardware (in this case, torpedoes) determined classes of ships. For maritime powers that control sea, oceans and lengthy water communications, it seemed logical to increase the size and tonnage of vessels for the installation of more powerful torpedoes, artillery weapons, armor and other protective means.
Another option was to build numerous torpedo boats and further increase their speed and agility. These two factors were major combat characteristics of torpedo boats – to strike a swift blow and go out of enemy’s zone of torpedo and artillery attacks. Such boats were therefore made as light as possible to the detriment of their armor protection. They were easy to produce, could be produced in hundreds and were generally convenient for “mosquito” fleets.
During the 1970s, the Soviet Navy was building large rocket ships, but heavy weapons required higher displacement. The technology reduced speed and increased visibility, although it made vessels more powerful. The experience of the use of project 12341 and 1234 small missile ships testified to the lack of armament of these vessels. Having faced this dilemma, Soviet designers started looking for a different solution. In particular, they put forward an idea to build missile attack hovercraft.
For new vessels, designers suggesting using the platform for amphibious ships, such as “Jeiran” and “Zubr” of project 12321. The high-speed hovercraft outfitted with anti-missile systems, in theory allowed to turn these boats into the killers of battleships and aircraft carriers. As a result, in 1972, the Soviet government approved a closed state program to create a rocket ship on an air cushion (RKVP), Project 1239, codenamed “Sivuch.”
From the very beginning, the boats of the project were supposed to carry the “Mosquito” missile complex, which was previously used on destroyers and ekranoplans.
It was impossible to escape from hypersonic missiles of the “Mosquito” complex. They could be detected only a few seconds before contact with the target. An attack from 15-17 “Mosquitos” could sink a whole group of vessels.
The weight of each of such missiles is 4 tons. The decks of amphibious hovercraft were not suitable for such large and heavy objects. It was then decided to combine the catamaran and the air cushion sidewall layout. This allowed to equip the boat with deadly missiles, while maintaining excellent seaworthiness. “Mosquitoes” were eventually installed in two quad installations located on the left and right sides of the ship, which, thanks to high speed could not be struck by homing missiles and torpedoes.
The length of the “Bora” (built in 1984, passed into service in 1989) is 64 meters; its width is 9 meters. The ship is the largest one in its subclass. It is capable of developing the speed of 55 knots. In addition to three modes of navigation, the ship is able to move only on supercharged engines due to the flow of air from the air cushion in the stern.
During the Soviet times, it was planned to build flotillas of hovercraft for each of the country’s four fleets. However, only two ships were built – “Bora” and “Samum,” that are now part of the Black Sea Fleet.
Under the “Sivuch” program, it was planned to build 14 missile hovercraft for the Russian Black Sea Fleet before 2010. In case of conflict, the presence of such a group with the support of land-based naval aviation, the Black Sea would be turned into a Russian lake. The plans have never been realized, but the experience can be used to create a new generation of these wonderful ships with enhanced air and missile defense systems. After all, state-of-the-art missile systems through shoot through the Black Sea, which fundamentally changes the approach to forming and operating principles of naval forces.
-
RUSSIA MAY DELAY CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION UNTIL 2020
PanARMENIAN.Net – Russia may extend the deadline for complete destruction of its chemical weapons arsenal until 2020 as it lacks industrial capacity to finish the task on schedule, RIA Novosti reported citing the Izvestia newspaper.
The relevant draft proposal is being prepared by the Trade Ministry and will be submitted to the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council, on April 16, the paper said. The final decision will be made by the Russian president after consultations with the Russian lawmakers and experts.
Russia has destroyed about 25,000 metric tons of chemical weapons, or 62 percent of its 40,000-ton stockpile as of April 29, 2012 – the deadline set by the Chemical Weapons Convention for complete arsenal destruction.
While Moscow for years said it would meet the deadline, Russia has already postponed the completion until 2015, but even the new deadline seems to be unrealistic.
Alexander Grabovsky, an expert on chemical weapons disposal, told Izvestia that the delayed construction of the last chemical weapon destruction plant, located in Udmurtia, had hampered the implementation of the program.
“The facility is still not operational and its annual capacity will be about 1,600-1,800 tons, while the amount of stockpiles it has to destroy is over 5,000 tons,” Izvestia quoted Grabovsky as saying.
Russia signed the Chemical Weapons Convention banning the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical arms in 1993, and ratified it in 1997. The Russian government has allocated 230 billion rubles ($7.18 billion) for the implementation of the program since then, and has built six chemical weapon destruction plants, including the Kambarka facility in the Republic of Udmurtia.
Russia is unlikely to face international sanctions for the delay in the implementation of the program because it is not the only country that will not be able to meet the announced deadlines.
The United States has postponed the deadline for destroying the remaining 2,000 metric tons of its 27,000-ton chemical weapons arsenal first until 2021 and then until 2023.
As of January 31, 2012, more than 50,000 metric tons of chemical weapons, or 73 percent of the global stockpile, have been destroyed.
RUSSIA’S FORCES ARE READY FOR WAR
Source: RIA Novosti
January 31, 2013
Russia’s armed forces are ready for a major war, Chief of the military’s General Staff Col. Gen. Valery Gerasimov said on Saturday.
“No one rules out the possibility of a major war, and it cannot be said that we are unprepared,” Gerasimov said, speaking at an Academy of Military Sciences meeting.
His address covered key issues the armed forces face today – including outsourcing. Col.Gen Gerasimov conceded that outsourcing was necessary, in order to relieve soldiers of certain functions, but added that “outsourcing is only needed in peacetime and only at permanent bases.” He also stressed that these activities would be carried out by troops during combat or training.
President of the Academy of Military Sciences, Army General Makhmut Gareev said that the Russian Army’s approach to outsourcing needed to be completely reviewed.
“We think that the outsourcing system needs to be given a root-and-branch review: laws should be passed covering combat scenarios, their transfer to a war footing, and their full subordination to unit commanders,” Gareev explained. He also warned that unless this was done, then logistics and technical support systems would collapse.
Turning his attention to the issue of military education, Gareev slammed the current baccalaureate system involving a basic training component delivered in colleges which is supplemented by additional training in the armed forces’ academies, as entirely unsuited to military service.
He said that officers’ training is the most important challenge the high command currently faces. “Only the high command, with its highly qualified specialists, is in a position to ensure that higher educational institutions have the most sophisticated teaching and material resources, curricula and academic literature,” Gareev said.
-
RUSSIA’S CONCERN IS TO DENY VICTORY TO THE WEST
By Zaki Laïdi | The Financial Times
Moscow will not give up Damascus, as Russia’s foreign minister has made clear – despite rebels’ latest success in targeting the heart of the Assad regime. At stake here, beyond Syria, is the restoration of Russian power in relation to the west.
Russia’s relations with Syria date back to the emigration to Turkey and Syria of Circassian minorities in the 19th century and this link still influences Russia’s perception of the Syrian crisis. The fear is that chaos in Syria, if followed by an Islamist victory, might radicalise the Russian Caucasus. Moreover, Syria has traditionally been a counterweight to Turkey, especially when Turkish-Syrian relations were troubled. If the Damascus regime fell, Moscow’s southern flank would be weakened. Indeed, the regime’s fall would cut Russia out of the Middle East, where it has met with one setback after another over the past 50 years.
Of course, the counter-argument is that the more Moscow supports Damascus, the more it jeopardises its position in Syria. But Russia does not think in these terms. It does not seek to adapt to a changing world but to return to the old world by preserving what is left of it. Russia is fighting national decline not with renewal or development but with systematic political obstruction.
Russia’s decline in the Middle East began in 1971, when Anwar Sadat. president of Egypt, expelled Soviet military advisers. The Russians were unable to make up for this defeat in the region because Iraq was too unpredictable and Iran too uncontrollable. Syria has the advantage of being highly predictable and perfectly controllable. It is predictable because Syrians have always known just how far to push against the west or Israel – their realism evident in Damascus’s silence after Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor Syria was building with the help of North Korea. It is also controllable because the country has very few allies besides Russia and Iran. The regime has no cards to play and, despite an apparent opening to the west in recent years, is unreformed.
Moscow sees Syria as the perfect friend. Relations might sometimes be strained by the big military debt Damascus has incurred with Moscow. Yet the stability of Syrian policy is appealing to the Russians because it closely resembles theirs. Both countries defend their interests by compromising as little as possible with the west, short of resorting to force. Both maintain authoritarian and nationalist regimes for which doing business with the west need not imply adopting its model of democracy and human rights. There have been close contacts between the Russian and Syrian elites since the mid-1950s, especially between their armies and intelligence communities.
This stable relationship has also been strengthened by the hereditary nature of the Russian and Syrian regimes. Children of the countries’ respective nomenclatures often succeed their parents in key intelligence positions. There are also personal links: some 30,000 Russian citizens live in Syria. Russian arms sales and access to naval facilities are not the foundation but the extension of this relationship.
Yet there is another factor driving Russian conduct: Moscow’s desire to prevent any western gains from the Syrian crisis. The regime’s unpopularity is secondary in Russia’s assessment of a situation: above all, it does not want to see the Syrian crisis unfold like the Libyan one. In Moscow’s eyes, the west used UN Resolution 1973 on Libya to get rid of an unpopular regime, and its success was unwelcome. Russians consider help to people struggling against oppressive leaders as a façade to hide ulterior political or commercial motives. What matters to them is that the international system should rest on the sovereignty of states. As Russia declines and falls behind the west and China, its leaders are increasingly tempted to base their political identity on their opposition to the west. In these circumstances, unrest in Syria – even if it ends in civil war and the departure of Bashar al-Assad – is preferable to an orderly political transition that would end the regime.
Russia’s priority is not so much to support the Syrian regime. It is to make the price of regime change prohibitive enough for the west to forgo any thoughts of sponsoring it – in Syria, or in Russia.
-
KREMLIN: “RUSSIA MUST BE READY TO COUNTER THREAT FROM THE WEST USING MILITARY FORCE”
Russia must be ready to counter threat using military force – Rogozin
“The Cold War rudiments, both in their organization, such as NATO, or propaganda, such as Russophobia, forms have not disappeared, ” Rogozin said.
“Western civilization is a condition of exhausting resources and is not going to give up the level of consumption which they got have been used to for a long time. This means the struggle for the access to these resources will become even more severe,” he said.
MOSCOW: Military force is always in demand in the modern world, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said at the Military and Industrial Conference in Moscow on Wednesday.
“We cannot fail to see what is happening in the world. Military force is still in demand, and the threat of using it is a key factor of interaction on the solution of global political and economic issues,” Rogozin said.
“Shaking hands with its partners with a steel hand in a child’s glove, Russia must show the world its firm resoluteness to defend the world and its place in it,” he said.
“The Cold War rudiments, both in their organization, such as NATO, or propaganda, such as Russophobia, forms have not disappeared, ” Rogozin said.
“Western civilization is a condition of exhausting resources and is not going to give up the level of consumption which they got have been used to for a long time. This means the struggle for the access to these resources will become even more severe,” he said.
“Meanwhile, new giants with gigantic ambitions are entering the world arena. The 21st century will not be just a promenade on an avenue,” Rogozin said.
-
MOSCOW’S MESSAGE TO AMERICA: “HANDS OFF” THE MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
The Munich Security Conference
Munich’s Security Conference is held annually. This year marks the 49th session. Dozens of countries participated. Hundreds of world leaders attended.
They included heads of state, foreign affairs and defense ministers, as well as other senior figures. Active engagement was prioritized. Current and future security challenges were discussed.
In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin took full advantage. He pulled no punches. He sharply criticized US foreign policy. He called it:
“very dangerous (in its) uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.” US imperialism, he stressed, “overstepped its national borders in every way.”
“(U)nilateral illegal actions have not resolved any single problem. They have become a hotbed of further conflicts.”
“We are seeing increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law….No one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them.”
“Of course, such a policy stimulates an arms race. The dominance of force inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
Putin also addressed a “unipolar world.” He called it one “in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day, this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”
He added that “We are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”
America deplores democracy at home and abroad. It prioritizes unchallenged dominance. It demands what it says goes. Russia supports peace, not war. It favors diplomatic conflict resolution.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended this year’s Conference. Itar Tass headlined “Moscow calls on West not to impose outside values on peoples of Middle East, Africa.”
“We all aspire for stability and conditions for sustainable development in the Middle East and in Africa, we want the peoples of countries there to be able to move towards the democracy and wellbeing, to have guaranteed human rights, smooth supplies of hydrocarbons and other vital resources.”
“If those are our joint objectives, then, we may agree on transparent and clear rules, which should be used by all players in their practical actions.”
“Agree that we all will be supporting the democratic reforms of the changing countries, but not to impose an outside value scale, acknowledging the variety of development models.”
“Should agree that we shall be supporting the peaceful settlement of the inner state conflicts and stopping of violence via conditions for an inclusive dialogue with involvement of all national political groups.”
“Should agree that we shall refrain from outside interference, especially by force, without a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and from any unilateral sanctions. That we should continuously and firmly fight extremism and terrorism in all forms, should demand observation of rights for ethnic and confessional minorities.”
“Approaches of our Western counterparts cause many questions.”
“Does support for change of regimes justify terror methods? Is it possible to be fighting in one situation against those who you support in another one?”
Lavrov said answers to key questions “should be found jointly, especially regarding final objectives for the efforts to settle crises in countries of the Euro-Atlantic region, which have more uniting aspects rather than discrepancies.”
Russia categorically opposes force. It wants Syrians alone to decide who’ll lead them. It wants no external interference. It’s got international law on its side.
Earlier Lavrov expressed concern about Israeli aggression on Syria. He called it “unacceptable.”
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also addressed Munich participants. He admitted Israel’s involvement.
He said “what happened in Syria several days ago (is) proof that when we said something we mean it….and we say that we don’t think it should be allowed to bring advanced weapons into Lebanon.”
Israel committed naked aggression. It was unrelated to cross-border weapons transfers. Israel’s objectives aren’t clear. It may be to goad Syria to counterattack.
Doing so would risk greater war. It could become regional or global. History proves small conflicts at times become major ones.
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani warned Israel, saying:
”The world is witnessing a vengeance carried out by the West, particularly the US, and some backward elements in the region against resistance.”
He urged regional countries to distance themselves from Israel. He said “the Islamic awakening movement in the region would give a proper response to the Zionist regime.”
On February 3, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said “Israeli Aggression Reveals Israel’s Role in Destabilizing Syria.”
Assad responded publicly for the first time. He said Israel acted in “collaboration with hostile external powers.” Syria’s able to confront challenges. It’ll repel aggression. Destabilizing Syria won’t work. Iran offers full support.
On February 2, Voice of Russia contributor Konstantin Garibov headlined “Israel’s air attack against Syria heralds new regional conflicts,” saying:
Doing so entails great risks. Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned Israel’s attack. It called it “an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state.”
Syria declared the right to respond. International law permits justifiable self-defense. Lebanese political scientist Imad Rizk called the attack’s timing “symptomatic.”
Netanyahu “returned to big politics.” He forming a coalition government. He’s negotiating for strategic advantage. He’ll deal with Washington’s new Secretary of State.
”It looks like the attack became the US and Israel’s joint declaration” of war on Syria.
Vladimir Putin said “Israel will keep delivering blows on facilities or forces participating in the Syrian conflict. They would be either Islamist groups of troops loyal to Bashar al-Assad. I can foresee that as the crisis becomes worse, Israel could expand its participation in such attacks.”
Israel allegedly fears Islamic extremists. Supposedly it’s concerned about ties to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Oriental Studies analyst Vladimiri Sotnikov believes “It would be a nightmare for Israel.”
It’s likely what Israel prefers. It needs enemies to justify belligerence. Peace, calm and stability defeat its agenda.
As foreign minister in 1982, Yitzhak Shamir explained why Israel attacked Lebanon. A “terrible danger” existed, he said, “not so much a military one as a political one.”
On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. Fighting lasted nearly a year.
An Israeli staged false flag was pretext. Arafat was falsely blamed for Abu Nidal militants’ attempted assassination of Israeli UK ambassador Shlomo Argov.
Israel got the war it wanted. Around 18,000 Palestinians were massacred. Southern Lebanon remained occupied until May 2000. Israel still illegally holds Sheba Farms.
It’s a 14-square mile water-rich area near Syria’s Golan. It’s been lawlessly occupied since 1967 along with Ghajar, a bordering Lebanese village.
Sabra and Shatila remain symbols of Israeli ruthlessness. At the time, Ariel Sharon was defense minister. He ordered the slaughter. He let Phalangist fascists do his dirty work.
Palestinian civilians were massacred in cold blood. Women were raped multiple times before being killed. Children were murdered like adults.
Whole families were shot, stabbed, bludgeoned to death, or buried dead or alive under homes. Some were tortured before dying. Bodies were decapitated.
Corpses were charred and violated. Eyes were gouged out. Faces were unrecognizable.
Israel maliciously planned it. Sharon led it. He called it “ridding the world of the center of international terrorism.” Orwell couldn’t have said it better. No one to this day was punished. Israel massacres with impunity.
Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy said “Israel does as it pleases.” Rogue states operate that way. Criticizing them is called “heresy and treason.”
Israel overflies Lebanon’s airspace with impunity. It’s “taken for granted.” It bombards whatever it calls dangerous. It “invade(s) any place, settle(s) anywhere. It may do (almost) anything.”
It does any damn thing it wishes. Washington offers full support. They’re imperial partners. They jointly plan aggression. They get away with it because who’ll stop them?
“(A)nything allowed (is) shaped (in) Israeli consciousness.” It’s based on largely baseless assumptions. Notions about being surrounded by hostile Arabs don’t wash.
It bears repeating. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents. It menaces regional neighbors and humanity. It prioritizes Middle East dominance.
It wants regional rivals eliminated. It wages unprovoked naked aggression. Israel alone has weapons of mass destruction. Using them is prioritized if threatened.
“(T)o hell with all the troublesome questions,” said Levy. Only what Israel wants matters. Rule of law principles apply to others. “Israel is allowed to do anything.”
It gets away with mass murder and much more. Its right is divine, it claims. It doesn’t matter what others say. Only Israeli interests count.
Saying so claims Jewish exceptionalism, specialness, and uniqueness. Israeli hardliners say they’re God’s “chosen people.” They have a divine right to commit naked aggression. Spurning human rights comes with the territory.
They can do any damn thing they wish. They debase moral values and ethical principles. They threaten Jews and non-Jews alike. They endanger humanity.
They need to be stopped before they kill again. In response to Israel’s May 2010 Mavi Marama massacre, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked colleagues to sign a letter to Obama, stating:
“It is not acceptable to repeatedly violate international law. It is not acceptable to shoot and kill innocent civilians. It is not acceptable to commit an act of aggression against another U.S. ally.”
“It is not acceptable to continue a blockade which denies humanitarian relief. It is not acceptable to heighten tensions in a region while the United States continues to put so much blood and treasure on the line.”
“No one questions the right of Israel to defend its border. (Doing so) does not extend to shooting innocent civilians anywhere in the world, anytime it pleases.”
“Israel must account for our support, for the lives of our soldiers, for the investment of billions from our taxpayers.”
“Israel owes the United States more than reckless, pre-meditated violence waged against innocent people.”
It’s hard imagining anyone in Congress today this forthright. It’s likely why Kucinich lost his March 2012 primary reelection bid. Dark forces targeted him. The Israeli Lobby wanted him ousted.
They went after Cynthia McKinney the same way. Doing the right thing is costly. The Israeli Lobby ran her out of Congress twice. Ruining her political career became policy.
Virtually no one in Congress criticizes Israel. Doing it risks being a career ender. McKinney believes principle matters most. Her soul isn’t for sale. Hopefully, Kucinich feels the same way.
He’s free to keep doing what’s right. Voices for truth and justice are badly needed. The most perilous time in world history demands they speak out. Imperiled humanity depends on it.
-
PUTIN CALLS FOR END TO ALL ARMS SHIPMENTS TO SYRIA
Speaking in Hanover, Germany, Vladimir Putin said that Russia was willing to discuss a total arms ban to both sides of the Syrian conflict, according to Russia Today. “It is necessary that arms imports to all sides in the Syrian conflict are halted,” he said. “As for Syria we don’t have a solution yet. What do I think should be done? Halt arms import to the country, but to all sides of the conflict.”
Putin again emphasized that Russian sales to the Assad regime were legal: “We supply the legitimate regime. This is not prohibited by international law.”
On April 5 Putin told the German press: “There are international legal norms stating that it is unacceptable to supply arms to the armed groups that strive to destabilize the situation in a certain country with the use of arms.” He called the situation in Syria a “disaster” and a “catastrophe,” which “has to stop.” He referenced a proposal from France’s President Francois Hollande which he considered “interesting,” although that plan has not yet been made public.
-
PUTIN: INTERNATIONAL LAW MUST GUIDE ACTIONS IN SYRIA
In an exclusive interview with Germany’s first national television program ARD aired primetime last night, the Russian President, who will arrive for a short visit in Germany Sunday, said on Syria: “I think that we should seek an immediate cessation of hostilities, of shelling from both sides, and a cessation of arms supplies. We often hear: Russia is supplying arms to Assad. First of all, there are no bans on arms supplies to incumbent legitimate governments. Secondly, only recently the opposition has received 3.5 tons of arms and munitions through the airports near Syria. This is the information published by the American media, I believe, by the New York Times. It has to be stopped.
“However, I would like to stress once again and I believe it is extremely important, there is international law. There are international legal norms stating that it is inadmissible to supply arms to the armed groups that strive to destabilize the situation in a certain country with the use of arms. Such norms exist and they remain in force; nobody abolished them. So, when they say that Assad is fighting against his own people, we need to remember that this is the armed part of the opposition. What is going on is a massacre, this is a disaster, a catastrophe. It has to be stopped. It is necessary to bring all the warring parties to the negotiation table. I believe that this is the first step that has to be done, and then it is necessary to elaborate further steps during a discussion, which is important in our view.
“We do not think that Assad should leave today, as our partners suggest. In this case, tomorrow we will have to decide what to do and where to go. We have done it in many countries. To be precise, our Western partners have. And it is unclear where Libya will go. In fact, it has already split into three parts. We do not want to have the situation of the same difficulty as we still have in Iraq. We do not want to have the situation of the same difficulty as in Yemen, and so on.”
Putin also made reference, without going into any details, to a French initiative which is in the making: “Recently, we received Mr. Hollande, President of the French Republic. I think he has some interesting ideas that can be implemented, but it requires some diplomatic work. We are ready to support these ideas. We need to try and put them into practice.”
-
RUSSIA SAYS IT WILL OPPOSE GIVING SYRIA’S UNITED NATIONS SEAT TO THE OPPOSITION
If the Syrian Nation Coalition moves to take over Syria’s seat at the United Nations, as is being mooted in some places, they will find Russia standing in the way. “We will oppose it. We’ll oppose it very strongly,” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN said on March 28. “But you know, I don’t think it is going to happen because I think that most of the members of the UN are responsible members of the UN,” he added. “They value this institution and they understand that if something of this sort were to happen that would really undercut the standing of the United Nations.”
Churkin also criticized the Arab League for seating the opposition in its assembly, saying that that move undercut UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi’s efforts as the joint UN-AL representative. “So, it’s a very unfortunate new development that damages the stand of the AL in the case of the Syrian crisis and in fact, they are beginning to act more and more as a negative rather than a positive force.” Churkin said that any member of the UN has to be a legitimate representative of that country and Russia is one of nine members of the UN credentials committee. While Russia doesn’t have a veto on the credentials committee, it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council where it does have a veto.
The British news agency Reuters apparently has a different view of the matter, however, reporting that of the 190 or so members of the UN General Assembly, 114 of them are in the so-called Friends of Syria group. “Most countries have recognized the Syrian Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people,” says Najib Ghadbian, a professor of political science at the University of Arkansas and the head of the coalition’s U.S. offices. He added that the UN “can help ensure a stable transition in Syria to a peaceful, democratic and inclusive state structure by granting the Syria UN seat to Syria’s opposition.” Reuters goes on to note that there are two recent precedents for giving the Syrian seat to the opposition, that of Ivory Coast in 2010 and Libya in 2011 (and we all know how well that worked out). Unnamed diplomats tell Reuters that the move to seat the Syrian National Coalition could come in September or even sooner.
-
EX-RUSSIAN GENERAL: AMERICA MUST BE KEPT AT GUNPOINT
Tactical nuclear weapons “should constantly be aimed at the United States”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 4, 2013
Retired Russian General Leonid Ivashov told Pravda in a recent interview that America must be held at gunpoint by means of of tactical nuclear weapons which “should constantly be aimed at the United States.”
Ivashov was former chief of general affairs in the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Defence before becoming vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs.
“Tactical nuclear weapons that are constantly threatening the United States must become the factor that will deter large-scale aggression. Holding it at gunpoint – this is the deterrent,” Ivashov told Pravda.Ru editor-in-chief Inna Novikova.
Ivashov went on to explain that Russia remains suspicious of China as an ally because Beijing continues to make decisions with the United States behind Russia’s back, but that China and Russia remain the primary targets of America’s geopolitical aggression.
“In America, it is all vice versa. On October 18, 2003, Bush signed a directive on the concept of Prompt Global Strike. A priority was not a first massive nuclear strike, but a strike with the use of high precision technologies. Glide bombs then finish it off and a country is presented with an ultimatum. If this country does not agree, it will repeat all over again. It is clear that the first target for this potential attack is Russia. But Russia – accidentally or not – may launch its strategic nuclear arsenal,” said Ivashov, explaining how both Russia and China will struggle to repel a U.S. attack.
“To attack China or Russia, cruise missiles will be used. A third of them come with nuclear warheads. Nowadays, four-class “Ohio” submarines, the largest American subs, that had 24 intercontinental ballistic missiles on board, are being reequipped. They remove the ICBMs and replace them with 158 cruise missiles on each sub. The same thing happens to “Virginia” subs. They develop a strategic cruise missile, the range of which will be not less than 5,000 kilometers. Its speed will be equal to two sonic speeds. It will be the type of arms that no one will be able to destroy – neither Russia, nor China or anyone else,” he said.
Ivashov went on to argue that Russia’s only deterrent to the threat of a U.S. attack were tactical nuclear weapons that, “should constantly be aimed at the United States,” suggesting Cuba as a potential site for such weapons, an alarming throwback to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which marked the closest moment that the world came to World War III and a potential nuclear holocaust.
The former General expressed the need for Russian leaders to “reformat the world” in a different mould to the Anglo-American model in order to avoid a “disastrous scenario” that would be “catastrophic” for the planet.
Ivashov called for the UN Security Council to be expanded as a counter-balance to American hegemony, adding, “The next step is to develop the Euro-Asian continental union, which includes Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.”
In essence, Ivashov is re-iterating the call for a multi-polar world to replace the ‘new world order’ model led by America, Britain and NATO powers. However, his call for that model to be enforced by tactical nuclear weapons aimed squarely at the United States is sure to stoke concern amongst military leaders in the west.
-
RUSSIANS WARN OF U.S. AGGRESSION
by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief
March 8, 2013
The Russians have been increasingly assertive in their verbal attacks on the West for a couple of years now. Mostly it’s been side remarks by PM Vladimir Putin who loses no opportunity to decry US aggressiveness in the Middle East or accuse us of funneling money to his electoral opposition. The latter accusation isn’t true—the underground communist party runs all the significant opposition parties to give the impression that there is democracy in Russia.
This week Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars.com writes about more anti-American sentiments voiced by a prominent retired Russian General who openly declared that “America Must Be Kept at Gunpoint.”
What he says does represent how the Russian military really thinks. While allied with China in order to take on the West, Russia realizes that China is also an eventual threat. Just as both Stalin and Hitler made temporary alliances against the West, each planned on striking the other in the battle for supremacy. Hitler simply beat Stalin to the punch. I expect China will similarly turn on Russia after the start of WWIII.
The Russian military is always told that the US intends to strike them pre-emptively, which isn’t true. But, it keeps them thinking they are preparing to “defend Mother Russia.” It’s the Russians that have always intended to do the initial strike, and that’s how they start each war-game. In fact, the Russians have recently expanded their nuclear war-games to a level not seen since the cold war.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley P. Miller sought to play down the nuclear exercise, as the government always does. “Miller said the nuclear forces maneuvers were ‘nothing to be concerned about because the Russians, like us, have routine exercises and inspections.’” This off-handed dismissal always bothers me, and demonstrates that there is some kind of long-standing rule inside US intelligence not to alert the American people to the Russian danger, until it’s too late to stop.
The Russians are required to notify the United States under the New START treaty of major strategic nuclear exercises that involve bomber flights. They did not do so, and the US says nothing. This highlights another agenda by government and our media never to publicize Russian cheating. In fact the CIA says that Russia is in compliance with all strategic arms limitation agreements. Hogwash!
I know it’s hard to understand why our leaders seem so stupid, so suicidal. Let me assure you, it is not stupidity. Our military leaders are all yesmen and go along with globalist political leaders that drive the agenda. Their prime goal is to make the US appear weak enough that they can finally get the Russians to pull off this nuclear strike on the West.
Why does the US want nuclear destruction of American military and communication sites? Because only if the US military is taken down, can they drive the rest of the Western world into creating a militarized global government to defend themselves and prosecute this war. The US will rebuild during the war but only as an integrated part of the New World Order, and its liberties and national sovereignty will be lost in the cry of the people to “do anything it takes to save us.” That’s the ultimate Hegelian dialectic played out.
-
PUTIN: RUSSIAN MILITARY MUST BE PREPARED TO FACE DESTABILIZING THREATS
On Feb. 27, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech to the Defense Ministry, in which he laid out not only his view of modernization of Russia’s military forces, but also the potential and actual threats that those forces need to be able to respond to. “We see how instability and conflict are spreading around the world, today,” he said. “Armed conflict continues in the Middle East and Asia and the danger of ‘export’ of radicalism and chaos continues to grow in our neighboring regions.
“At the same time, we see methodical attempts to undermine the strategic balance in various ways and forces,” Putin continued. “The United States has essentially launched now the second phase in its global missile defense system. There are attempts to sound out possibilities for expanding NATO further eastward, and there is also the danger of the militarization of the Arctic.”
These challenges, just a few among the many Russia faces, “are of direct concern to our national interests and therefore also determine our priorities,” Putin said. Putin cited close integration of Eurasia, through moving towards the establishment of an Eurasian economic Union, as well as deepening Russia’s partnership with both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS group, as among Russia’s top priorities.
The rest of his remarks concerned the objectives of Russian defense policy, to include the development of an integral military strategic planning system, and modernization of not only the military’s equipment, but also the way it trains and plans to fight.
-
RUSSIA PREPARES FOR WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES AND NATO, WHILE LACKING RESOURCES
March 15, 2013
Sergei Shoigu, a former long-time emergency situations minister (MChS) and a former Moscow region governor is a well-known and popular figure in Russia—according to recent independent Leveda-Tsentr polls, he is at present more popular than Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Last November, President Vladimir Putin sacked the highly disliked Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, replacing him with Shoigu, whose popularity has been growing ever since; Serdyukov continues to be discredited by a high-profile investigation of alleged mass misappropriations in the defense ministry under his watch. Today, Shoigu seems to be second in popularity only to Putin himself, though, according to Leveda-Tsentr director Lev Gudkov, “Shoigu’s popularity is within Putin’s core base—the elderly, badly educated and ill-informed provincial folks.” According to Gudkov, Shoigu cannot politically compete with Putin, but can with Medvedev (Kommersant, February 26).
Despite Shoigu’s popularity, present plans to reverse Serdyukov’s military modernization are being attacked by experts as basically flawed and doomed to fail. In a keynote address at a seminar in Moscow this week, well-known politician and defense analyst Alexei Arbatov (62), a former Duma deputy and chief of the Center for International Security of the Russian Academy of Sciences, described Serdyukov’s attempts to reform the Russian military as “controversial.” From 2008 to 2012, then-President Medvedev continuously implied, according to Arbatov, the need to closely cooperate with the West in order to obtain technologies and know-how to modernize Russia as well as its military and civilian infrastructure. Serdyukov followed these political directives by attempting to Westernize Russia’s military structure and to procure Western-made weapons. At the same time, according to Arbatov, the Russian military doctrine, adopted in 2010, de facto implied that the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are the main threat and Russia must prepare to fight them (http://www.lawinrussia.ru/node/247260).Today, Arbatov noted, Russian defense and foreign policies have been streamlined and are not “controversial” anymore. It has been decided:
1) Russia is surrounded by enemies led by the US.
2) The US is using the pro-democracy opposition inside Russia to subvert the regime.
3) The US with its allies may invade Russia anytime.
4) The West plans to use military power to seize Russia’s natural riches.
5) Russia will use its own technologies to rearm its military.
6) Russia’s allies are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO nations together with Belarus, Armenia and possibly Syria.
7) Nuclear weapons are the cornerstone of Russian security, while calls for nuclear disarmament are a malicious US swindle.
According to Arbatov, Putin’s ambitious rearmament program, costing 23 trillion rubles ($754 billion) until 2020, will surely fail, since Russia does not have the needed technologies or the money, as its economy is today hit by stagflation. Russia must, Arbatov argued, return to Medvedev’s foreign policy of closely cooperating with the West, end spreading misleading propaganda about a possible imminent major war with the West, and with Western help build a modern, compact all-volunteer military of some 800,000 service personnel, while canceling conscription (http://www.lawinrussia.ru/node/247260).
The personal wealth and political power of Putin and his close cohorts is based on the control and distribution of wealth created by exporting oil, natural gas, metals, diamonds, fertilizer and other natural riches. Putin and his supporters took over Russia in the 2000s and began to project power over neighboring nations after sidelining or destroying a previous generation of oligarchies that controlled Russia’s multiple natural resources in the 1990s. Putin and his team seem to truly believe that Russia’s riches make it the envy of the world and that the US wants to appropriate Russian oil and gas so much it is ready to risk war, if Russia is weak enough. Both Putin and his top general—First Deputy Defense Minister and Chief of the General Staff, Army General Valery Gerasimov—have recently spoken publicly of mounting military threats and enemies surrounding Russia from all sides. Putin’s highly expensive rearmament program has, therefore, been presented as a desperate attempt to preempt Western-led military aggression (see EDM, February 14).
Putin’s rearmament program is clearly too ambitious, while the overall threat assessment that underpins it seems ludicrous. The Russian defense industry is struggling and often fails to produce decent modern weapons despite massive budget cash injections. According to defense ministry sources, some 30 percent of the 200 military helicopters procured in recent years are permanently disabled because of major technical breakdowns—mostly the newest attack helicopters, the Mi-28s and Mi-35s. Newly procured computerized command-and-control communication systems, which were intended to profoundly change the way the Russian military operates, do not work at all, and the Russian military is forced to use Cold War era-produced Soviet communications equipment that is still in working order (Vedomosti, February 15).
Plans to speedily produce and procure next generation jet fighters, tanks and warships in accordance with the rearmament plan will most likely be curtailed and postponed. The present Russian GDP is some 60 trillion rubles ($1.95 trillion). To generate enough revenue to run the rearmament program and prevent dramatic cuts to social spending, Russia’s GDP must grow to 150 trillion ($5 trillion) by 2020, which is virtually impossible. The rearmament program is not only too ambitious, it seems unbalanced, with half of the money earmarked to the Air Force and the Navy (5 trillion rubles or $164 billion each), while the Army and the Airborne Troops (VDV), which actually face serious potential security challenges in Central Asia and the Caucasus, will be given much less—2.6 trillion rubles ($85 billion) (Vedomosti, February 15). It appears that Shoigu, appointed defense minister on November 7, has outlived his 100-day grace period and will be increasingly under attack even by military experts who are basically loyal to the present regime, but who are nevertheless frustrated by the lack of adequate military decision-making.
-
U.S. MAY LAUNCH PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR “FIRST STRIKE” AGAINST RUSSIA SAYS RUSSIA’S EX-CHIEF OF STAFF
He warned that NATO and US strategies involved preventive attacks, including nuclear strikes at Russia and China, especially since China has been recently getting out of hand.
Gen. Baluyevsky stressed that the NATO missile shield was to protect the United States against possible retaliatory strikes.
“They expect that their opponents will respond with up to 100 missiles, not with 1,500 or 2,000, they are dreaming of being able to intercept the whole bulk of a hundred missiles and make themselves invulnerable after their first strike,” he added.
Washington pours around ten billion dollars a year into building up its global anti-missile defenses. “Some $9-11 billion a year is spent on developing the anti-missile shield,” Yuri Baluyevsky noted.
Voice of Russia, Interfax
-
U.S. MOVES TOWARD NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE CAPABILITY
by Carl Osgood and Rachel Douglas | Executive Intelligence Review
March 15, 2013
March 9—On March 1, the Strategic Studies Quarterly, a journal published by the U.S. Air Force’s Air University, published an article admitting what both Lyndon LaRouche and EIR, and the Russians, have long been warning against: that U.S. strategic policy under the Obama Administration is seeking to create the capability to launch a first strike against Russia and/or China, without fear of nuclear retaliation, and that this is making nuclear war more, not less, likely.
While the two authors, Keir A. Leiber, associate professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Daryl G. Press, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth University, have been warning against this danger since at least 2006, this is the first time one of their articles has appeared in a U.S. military publication, a tacit admission, perhaps, that their argument has merit, and must be considered.
The Strategic Studies article comes on the heels of a report from Moscow, by the Izborsk Club, an association of high-level Russian intellectuals who characterize themselves as “patriotic and anti-liberal,” warning of the same danger of an emerging “counterforce” threat to Russia’s strategic deterrent, and laying out the steps that Russia must take, militarily, to defend against it.
Since Barack Obama ascended to the office of the Presidency, he has expanded the Bush-Cheney policy of strategic confrontation with Russia, most notably, with respect to Iran and Syria. In Syria, the U.S. policy is one of regime change, a policy strongly opposed by Russia. At the same time, the U.S. has been ringing Russia with missile defenses, including land-based sites in Poland and Romania, and moving forward with a plan to forward-base four Aegis missile defense destroyers in Rota, Spain.
On May 3, 2012, then-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov declared that further advances in the deployment of a BMD system by the United States and NATO in Europe would so greatly threaten Russia’s security, as to necessitate a pre-emptive attack on such installations: The outbreak of military hostilities between the U.S.A. and Russia would mean nuclear war. “Considering the destabilizing nature of the BMDS,” Makarov told an audience including U.S. officials, “specifically the creation of the illusion of being able to inflict a disarming first strike without retaliation, a decision on the pre-emptive use of available offensive weapons will be taken during the period of an escalating situation” (emphasis added).
What Makarov was pointing out is that ostensibly defensive systems can be used in offensive warfare—in this case, to enable the West to launch a pre-emptive first strike without fear of a retaliatory response. Just two weeks later, at a conference in Virginia, former U.S. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright acknowledged that “there’s the potential that you could, in fact, generate a scenario where, in a bolt from the blue, we launch a pre-emptive attack and then use missile defense to weed out” Russia’s remaining missiles launched in response. “We’re going to have to think our way out of this,” he said. “We’re going to have to figure out how we’re going to do this.”
If the alleged threat from Iran, which is used to justify the missile defense deployment in Europe, is so great, then why not cooperate with Russia on missile defense? Indeed, Russia has been proposing such cooperation since 2007, when then-President Vladimir Putin traveled to Kennebunkport, Maine, to propose to then-President George W. Bush, cooperation with the U.S. and NATO on missile defense. Bush never accepted the proposal, and neither has Obama.
If the U.S.-NATO European system is not aimed at Russia, then the U.S. ought to be able to provide guarantees that that’s the case, as Russia has been demanding, but this is dismissed by the U.S. and NATO as “unnecessary.” The Russians have repeatedly warned that the U.S.-NATO plan upsets the strategic balance and increases the risk of war, and have acted accordingly, even as they have made numerous proposals that would avoid such a confrontation. The U.S. refusal to acknowledge Russian concerns, in concert with its regime-change policies in Syria and Iran, is setting the stage for that confrontation.
U.S. Seeks Strategic Primacy
In their March 1 article, “The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Conflict,” Leiber and Press posit that, number one, “technological innovation has dramatically improved the ability of states to launch ‘counterforce’ attacks—that is, military strikes aimed at disarming an adversary by destroying its nuclear weapons.” Number two, they argue, is that “in the coming decades, deterring the use of nuclear weapons during conventional wars will be much harder than most analysts believe.”
The basis of the authors’ first argument is that: “Very accurate delivery systems, new reconnaissance technologies, and the downsizing of arsenals from Cold War levels have made both conventional and nuclear counterforce strikes against nuclear arsenals much more feasible than ever before.” During the Cold War, they note, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union could launch a disarming first strike against the other because each side had so many weapons deliverable by different modes, that an attempted counterforce strike could not prevent a retaliatory reply. This is no longer the case. The reduction of nuclear arsenals on both sides means there are now fewer targets to hit, especially on the Russian side.
In 2006, Leiber and Press modeled a hypothetical U.S. first strike against Russia. “The same models that were used during the Cold War to demonstrate the inescapability of stalemate—the condition of ‘mutual assured destruction,’ or MAD—now suggested that even the large Russian arsenal could be destroyed in a disarming strike.” Their point was to demonstrate that the Cold War axioms of mutual and assured destruction and deterrence no longer apply.
But the authors go further to argue that the U.S. is knowingly pursuing a strategy of strategic primacy against potential adversaries, “meaning that Washington seeks the ability to defeat enemy nuclear forces (as well as other WMD) but that U.S. nuclear weapons are but one dimension of that effort. In fact, the effort to neutralize adversary strategic forces—that is, achieve strategic primacy—spans nearly every realm of warfare: for example, ballistic missile defense, antisubmarine warfare, intelligence, surveillance-and-reconnaissance systems, offensive cyber warfare, conventional precision strike, and long-range precision strike, in addition to nuclear strike capabilities.”
Rather than pointing out the obvious—that the U.S. is building a first-strike capability against any potential adversary, including Russia and China—they ask, instead: “How is deterrence likely to work when nuclear use does not automatically imply suicide and mass slaughter?”
Their second point is equally disturbing. If the United States gets involved in a conflict with a power that has nuclear weapons, the risk that those weapons will be used is actually increasing. They dispense with the counter-argument that no one in his right mind would launch nuclear war against the United States. In peacetime, this is certainly true, but if you are already being attacked by the United States, then regime survival may depend on what they call escalatory coercion. “Leaders of weaker states—those unlikely to prevail on the conventional battlefield—face life-and-death pressures to compel a stalemate,” they write. “And nuclear weapons provide a better means of coercive escalation than virtually any other.”
This is not so far-fetched. In fact, this was NATO’s strategy during much of the Cold War. It is Pakistan’s strategy against India, and is used as a hedge by Israel, should its conventional forces ever face catastrophic defeat. “Those who were weak during the Cold War are now strong, and another set of militarily weak countries—such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and even China and Russia—now clutch or seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves from overwhelming military might, just as NATO once did,” they write.
U.S. and Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces
In Russia, the strategic intention, and Russia’s weaknesses in the face of it, are very well understood. Russia’s nuclear forces collapsed quickly after the end of the Cold War. As of Sept. 1, 2012, at the time of the last data exchange between the U.S. and Russia under the new START treaty, Russia had 1,499 warheads on 491 delivery vehicles, putting it already below the treaty limitation of 1,550 warheads. The U.S., on the other hand, declared 1,722 warheads on 806 delivery vehicles. Most of the Russian warheads, 1,092 of them, in fact, are concentrated in its ICBM force of 334 missiles of various types, all silo-based except for 36 road-mobile systems.
The most important element of the U.S. strategic force is the Ohio-class ballistic-missile-armed submarines, 14 of which are in service, and at least 4 of which are reportedly on deterrent patrol at any one time, capable of carrying up to 8 warheads per missile, of either the 100-kt W76 model or the 475-kt W88 model. According to data provided by the Navy, in response to an EIR Freedom of Information Act request, U.S. Trident submarines conducted 38 patrols in 2009; 33 in 2010; and 28 in 2011, in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. To this, must be added Britain’s nuclear ballistic-missile submarine force of 4 Vanguard-class submarines, 1 of which is on patrol at all times, carrying 48 warheads.
The Russian ballistic-missile submarine force, which consist of 11 vessels, is not known to be maintaining a continuous at-sea posture, but Russia has been making efforts to upgrade it with the addition of the Borey-class of missile-launching submarines, the first of which was accepted into service in January, out of a total of 8 that are planned.
The Izborsk Report
In late January, the Izborsk Club, Russia’s new policy-shaping group, released a report entitled “Defense Reform as an Integral Part of a Security Conception for the Russian Federation: a Systemic and Dynamic Evaluation.” The sections of the 85-page report dealing with a potential thermonuclear global showdown demonstrate that leading Russian circles are well aware of the developments discussed in the latest Leiber-Press article, regarding U.S. attempts to develop a “counterforce” capability—to be able to take out Russia’s means to retaliate against a nuclear attack, thus making thermonuclear war more likely.
The Izborsk Club, founded on Lyndon LaRouche’s 90th birthday, Sept. 8, 2012 (a fact of which the group officially took note), brings together leading patriotic, anti-liberal Russian analysts with figures close to the Kremlin. Its new report was co-authored by Gen. Leonid Ivashov (ret.) (former head of the International Relations Department of the Ministry of Defense), Academician Sergei Glazyev, editors Alexander Prokhanov and Alexander Nagorny from the weekly Zavtra, and historian Andrei Fursov, among others.
The document was issued in a setting of turmoil within the Russian Armed Forces. Former furniture-store manager and tax collector Anatoli Serdyukov, who, as Defense Minister, oversaw defense reform for four years under Dmitri Medvedev’s Presidency, is under interrogation by the federal Investigative Committee in connection with the embezzlement scandal around the Ministry’s real estate agency, which had been headed by a woman who was apparently his mistress.
On Feb. 27, President Putin and his appointee as Defense Minister, Sergei Shoygu, addressed an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, to deal with the past year’s developments, and what Putin called “a difficult and at times painful” modernization process in the military. In this speech, Putin stated that, “We see methodical attempts to undermine the strategic balance in various ways and forms. The United States has essentially launched now the second phrase in its global missile defense system.” In this and several other passages, Putin’s remarks were consonant with the assessments and recommendations of the Izborsk Club.
Like LaRouche, the Izborsk authors soberly assess the danger of thermonuclear war, and its finality, as stemming from utopian policies reigning in the West. They write:
“Washington is escalating its efforts to achieve overwhelming military-technological superiority over Russia, such that the R[ussian] F[ederation] would dismantle its strategic nuclear arsenal, thus losing its retaliatory nuclear-strike capability and, consequently, losing strategic parity with the U.S.A. Washington is pursuing this goal both by developing advanced strategic rearmament programs, and through diplomatic efforts to impose upon Russia strategic and conventional arms reduction agreements that are advantageous to the U.S.A….
“Washington’s likely line in its Russia policy in the near future will be to involve Russia in a NEW RESET scheme, using the NATO bloc in order to (a) prevent Russia’s rapprochement with China, and (b) weaken Russia’s military potential as much as possible. This weakening will be accomplished through a series of disarmament agreements, reducing Russia’s strategic nuclear missile potential, as well as tactical nuclear weapons, to a minimum; the latter are especially important in the event of regional and local conflicts, including in Central Asia and the Caucasus region….
“For the decades ahead, however, any real threat of a massive nuclear-missile strike against Russia would originate only from the U.S.A and its allies. For the time being, the likelihood of such a war can be regarded as very small, as long as as Russia maintains its strategic nuclear forces and its deterrent capability of launching an assured retaliatory nuclear-missile strike. This turns nuclear weapons into the military-political ultima ratio, and makes them the subject of continuous military-technological competition between the superpowers, in attempts to neutralize this power factor. At the same time, in wars on a local or regional scale, tactical weapons are gaining more and more importance. Over the last decade, the USA and the NATO countries have been intensely developing the conception of a disarming non-nuclear strike against Russia’s control systems and its strategic nuclear forces. Such a counterforce strike would rule out the possibility of Russian nuclear retaliation that would cause unacceptable damage to the U.S.A.”
Concerning a “major war scenario,” the report continues:
“The nature of such a war will be:
- high-intensity and high-technology, since any of the countries named above would seek to deliver a preemptive, disarming strike with HPW [high-precision weapons] against our strategic nuclear forces, reconnaissance, control, and communications systems in outer space, in the air, and on the ground;
- “based on a massive employment of HPW and conventional forces and means of battle in the first attack echelon (in all-or-nothing mode), in order to destroy our forces and achieve the basic war objectives before a retaliatory nuclear strike can be launched and before the initiation of political negotiations.
- “In strategic terms, such a conflict may be preceded by a period of escalating conflict potential, which could allow the timely detection of war preparations by intelligence/ reconnaissance forces and assets, and the ability to carry out the needed countermobilization.”
The Way Out
The Leiber-Press article appears to have only one major weakness—how the U.S. should get out of the strategic trap it has marched into. They offer the alternatives of either avoiding war with nuclear-armed states, which they say may not be possible, or doing more of what it is currently doing, that is, building its counterforce capabilities to the point that it overcomes the danger of coercive escalation. They don’t suggest, however, a complete change in the strategic policy of the United States, but such a strategic change would require the Constitutional removal of President Obama from office and a paradigm shift in the way that strategic policy is made in Washington.
Recently, two top-level Russian officials, Sergei Ivanov, former Defense Minister and present head of the Russian Presidential Administration, and Vladimir Kozin, a member of an interagency working group attached to the Russian Presidential Administration and a researcher at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, both argued that the U.S. must stop surrounding Russia with missile defenses, and instead should join with the world community to develop the defenses necessary to protect the Earth from asteroid strikes.
Ivanov told Komsomolskaya Pravda on March 5 that the U.S. ABM system in Europe “does not appear to respond to potential threats coming from North Korea and Iran. This affects Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and undermines the balance of forces. In this case Moscow can’t afford a new round of nuclear arms reduction as the U.S. currently outnumbers Russia in nuclear weapons.”
Ivanov said that Russia sees “no light at the end of tunnel” in missile defense discussion with the U.S.” Pravda added, “Mr. Ivanov implied that Washington’s position is not sincere and cannot be taken seriously.” On planetary defense, he said, “No country, not even the United States, can solve this alone,” and therefore there must be a collective effort.
Ivanov’s remarks followed a hard-hitting Feb. 28 article in the Moscow Times by Kozin, who warned that the U.S. anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems are out to “destroy Russia intercontinental ballistic missiles,” and advising that instead of trying to surround Russia, the United States should be working with Russia to defend the Earth from meteorites and similar dangers. Kozin’s piece is an unusually detailed analysis that rips into President Obama’s phony offers of reducing offensive systems, and shows that Obama is covering up the buildup of tactical nuclear weapons at the same time as the ABM systems are built up.
Kozin writes:
“U.S. operational missile defense systems to be deployed in Romania and Poland in 2015 and 2018, respectively, are not designed to intercept potential ballistic missiles launched by Iran—the reason that the U.S. gave for introducing the missile shield. This is the task of the missile defense systems of the United States and its allies deployed in the Gulf region. The only purpose of the U.S. missile defense equipment deployed in Europe is to destroy Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles [emphasis added].
“The fact that our country is never mentioned in the missile shield program as a potential participant, proves that it is aimed at Russia. Russia is missing from both the NATO Missile Defense Action Plan and the U.S. and alliance’s ‘rules of engagement’ concerning the use of anti-ballistic missiles, endorsed shortly after the NATO Chicago summit last year.”
In conclusion, Kozen puts the defense of Earth question onto the table.
“Quite frankly, instead of thinking how to encircle Russia with nuclear and missile defense weapons, the American side should think about how it can work together with us and other interested parties to prevent meteorites from raining down on our planet.”
-
LYNDON LAROUCHE: THE DANGER OF NUCLEAR WAR
Published March 15, 2013
-
The risk that nuclear weapons will be used in a future conflict has been heightened by two changes that have taken place since the end of the Cold War, despite the reduction of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, argue two authors in a feature article published, last week, in the Strategic Studies Quarterly journal of the U.S. Air Force’s Air University. The authors are Keir A. Leiber, associate professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Daryl G. Press, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth University
The danger that they are pointing to is actually the result of the binding of U.S. — Omama Administration — war policy to British Imperial geopolitical intentions to wipe out most of the world’s population.
Leiber and Press posit at the outset of their article that, number one, “technological innovation has dramatically improved the ability of states to launch ‘counterforce’ attacksthat is, military strikes aimed at disarming an adversary by destroying its nuclear weapons.” Number two, they argue that “in the coming decades, deterring the use of nuclear weapons during conventional wars will be much harder than most analysts believe.”
The basis of Leiber and Press’s first argument is that “Very accurate delivery systems, new reconnaissance technologies, and the downsizing of arsenals from Cold War levels have made both conventional and nuclear counterforce strikes against nuclear arsenals much more feasible than ever before.” During the Cold War, they note, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union could launch a disarming first strike against the other because each side had so many weapons deliverable by different modes that an attempted counterforce strike could not prevent a retaliatory reply. This is no longer the case. The reduction of nuclear arsenals on both sides means there are now fewer targets to hit. In 2006, they modeled a hypothetical U.S. first strike against Russia. “The same models that were used during the Cold War to demonstrate the inescapability of stalemate – the condition of ‘mutual assured destruction,’ or MAD – now suggested that even the large Russian arsenal could be destroyed in a disarming strike.” Their point wasn’t the U.S.-Russia nuclear relationship, but rather to demonstrate that the Cold War axioms of mutual and assured destruction and deterrence no longer apply.
But Lieber and Press go further to argue that the U.S. is knowingly pursuing a strategy of strategic primacy against potential adversaries,”meaning that Washington seeks the ability to defeat enemy nuclear forces (as well as other WMD) but that U.S. nuclear weapons are but one dimension of that effort. In fact, the effort to neutralize adversary strategic forces—that is, achieve strategic primacy—spans nearly every realm of warfare: for example, ballistic missile defense, antisubmarine warfare, intelligence, surveillance-and-reconnaissance systems, offensive cyber warfare, conventional precision strike, and long-range precision strike, in addition to nuclear strike capabilities.” The danger that this represents is obvious, but they point it out by asking: “how is deterrence likely to work when nuclear use does not automatically imply suicide and mass slaughter?”
Leiber and Press’s second point is equally disturbing. If the United States gets involved in a conflict with a power that happens to have nuclear weapons, the risk that those weapons will be used is actually increasing. They dispense with the counter-argument that no one in his right mind would launch nuclear war against the United States. In peacetime, this is certainly true, but if you are already being attacked by the United States, then regime survival may depend on what they call escalatory coercion. “Leaders of weaker states – those unlikely to prevail on the conventional battlefield – face life-and-death pressures to compel a stalemate,” they write. “And nuclear weapons provide a better means of coercive escalation than virtually any other.” This is not so far-fetched. In fact, this was NATO strategy during much of the Cold War. It is Pakistan’s strategy against India, and is used as a hedge by Israel should its conventional forces ever face catastrophic defeat. “Those who were weak during the Cold War are now strong, and another set of militarily weak countries = such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and even China and Russia – now clutch or seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves from overwhelming military might, just as NATO once did,” they write.
The only weakness in the article seems to be what the U.S. should do about this situation. They offer the alternatives of either avoiding war with nuclear-armed states, which they say may not be possible, or doing more of the same, that is, suggesting that the U.S. should build its counter-force capabilities to the point that it overcomes the danger of coercive escalation.
The only way to overcome the real danger is by the removal of British-Saudi asset President Obama from the White House.
-
-
CRUX! OR CALL IT THE END GAME
By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
24 March 2013
This past week-end and its immediate sequels, mark a threatened point of break-down in what has been a long wave of trans-Atlantic crisis since the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and that of his brother, Robert. Now, in these present times, the probable outcome now awaiting the world, is the new general warfare, perhaps an human extinction, which Queen Elizabeth II’s imperial regime is currently working, overtly, to bring on very soon. Without any actual exaggeration, that is her publically stated intention: the near-extinction, or worse, of the human species.
The threat of such warfare by the British Empire, had been apparently lurking every time one of our few truly great Presidents had been faced with the threats of assassinations by the British empire and its agents. I mean such British agents as the monstrous Aaron Burr. In fact, the effect of the assassination of President William McKinley (which brought in the British asset and virtual traitor, Theodore Roosevelt), is also typical. The overt, rabid, Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, had been among the worst, as also Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Britain’s asset Harry S Truman, may not have been officially a traitor to the United States, but the effect might have been approximately the same, but for the interventions of such leading patriots as President Dwight Eisenhower and General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur. However, the United States has, so far, never outlived the effects so far, of the cases of the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and of his brother, Robert.
The notable fact of our republic’s history, to the present day, is that had Britain’s Winston Churchill not played about every diversionary trick imaginable to delay a war-time victory over Adolf Hitler’s regime, Harry S Truman would never have had the actual opportunity, in fact, to have been elected as U.S. President. The British empire had always remained the principal enemy (in fact) of our United States for longer than there had been a United States. The British empire, for as long as it had existed, since the mass-murders in Ireland by the New Venetian Party’s William of Orange, has always been the most persistent enemy of any true civilization.
I do not exaggerate in the least. I explain the situation as follows.
The crucial historical fact of modern history, has been, that, so far, the Roman Empire had never actually died. The heirs of that empire had transferred themselves to new residences and new guises in the upper region of the Adriatic, where the leading original Roman imperial families had fled to establish their new base for rebuilding their power. Such were the results of the later emergence of growth of the imperial city of Venice, and of the subsequent “New Venetian Empire” of such as William of Orange, which had led directly into the House of Orange’s wars against the France of Louis XIV, and, the subsequent mass-murderous butchery in Ireland, as a part of the conquest of the British Isles generally. The British empire was established in fact, between the intervals of the 1763 Peace of Paris and the subsequent imperial Treaty of Vienna under the batons of Metternich and the British empire’s Castlereagh.
Later, Germany’s dumping of Chancellor Bismarck in 1890, uncorked an immediate series of rapid, global developments in assassinations and warfares leading into what became known as World War I, and, soon afterward, to World War II. Since that time, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and somewhat later, of his brother Robert, has, in fact, led the planet to a present brink of an immediately threatened, global state of thermonuclear warfare. It was the arrant lies used to conceal the truth of the assassination of President Kennedy, and, also, of his brother, later, which permitted the otherwise prevented launching of the U.S. Indo-China war, against which General MacArthur had warned, together with President Kennedy, a war which had permitted the drift into Hell, this far, which is now threatening the entirety of the human species, even its not improbable self-extinction of the human species at the hand of the British imperial monarchy..
So, a thermonuclear war launched by the British empire, with the United States in tow, now threatens a proximate thermonuclear warfare, a state of thermonuclear warfare which means a virtual extinction of the human species.
To provide the best qualified readers here with some urgently needed, critical insights into the historical background for the present threat of a general thermonuclear warfare, I have devoted my attention in the following pages to references to three cases. Those three cases have been: the crucially unique role of General of the Armies MacArthur’s decision for the crucial action of the Inchon landing in Korea; the grotesque, British irony of the famous victory of Prussia’s Frederick II at Leuthen; and, also, what was rarely recognized currently, the deep-rooted role of the modern, British background in the Roman empire still today.
THE LEGACY OF INCHON TODAY
The most common of the great dangers lurking in modern warfare, in particular, is to be seen in the sometimes stubborn quality of so-called “practical” outlooks by the United States on strategically grave matters of global crises of sundry varieties. The danger to mankind represented by such “practical” dupes of (usually) the British monarchy, is to be recognized in such instances as the resistance to U.S.A.’s Five-Star General Douglas MacArthur’s successfully overriding insistence on the celebrated achievement of the Inchon landing’s role in that war.
Otherwise, Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower had played a related, leading part in his continuing the role which had been U.S. Presidential candidate General MacArthur’s leading part in the dealing with the launching of the warfare in Korea. This matter goes much deeper, and much farther in effect, than a mere “local war” would seem to warrant. What was at issue, had been shown by the hesitation of some other U.S. commanders dealing with the Korea situation, who had, rather stubbbornly, initially resisted General MacArthur’s instance on the Inchon landing. MacArthur had momentarily overridden both the incumbent President Harry S Truman and the evil intentions of the combined policies of Britain’s pair of that time, Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell. The price of failing to carry out General MacArthur’s policy then, would have been disastrous for the United States during that immediate interval. Truman had his typically childish revenge, not long after that.
I explain, briefly. Before proceeding further along those lines, it is imperative that we pause here, so-to-speak to set the stage for considering the implications of General MacArthur’s experience with a succession of evils perpetrated by a U.S. President Harry S Truman who served as the British empire’s virtual Wall Street-stuffed puppet, evils perpetrated under the de facto superior authority of the British empire’s Winston Churchill and Churchill’s leading accomplice, the frankly satanic Bertrand Russell.
Truman’s Virtual Treason
Before presenting any perspective on both the warfare in Korea and the roles of Douglas MacArthur in the conclusion of war with Japan, we must take into account the dastardly changes in U.S.A. strategic policies which were introduced under the nominal Presidency of Harry S Truman, once President Franklin Roosevelt was conveniently deceased (for Churchill and his lackey virtual lackey, Truman) . The institutions of the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency were rapidly brought under the control of the Churchill-Truman apparatus, and every semblance of the post-war intentions of the Franklin Roosevelt administration was, in a large degree, overturned and reversed.
By 1948, every semblance of the strategic legacy of Franklin Roosevelt legacy, had not only been overturned, but the most crucial elements bearing on the post-war world were largely reversed in order to begin a world-wide policy of nuclear warfare, and, very soon, the intention onf rapid preparations for thermonuclear warfare. Anything deemed offensive to the British empire, tended to be overturned, according to British post-war requirements, by the lackeys of the Truman Presidency. Matters have largely remained so to the present date.
Thus, the most significant about-face, from a deceased hero-President President Roosevelt, to British lackey Truman, occurred with the crime of the worse than useless nuclear bombardment of two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in Japan. Thus, World War II was transmorgified into being de facto “World War III.” Douglas MacArthur, was keenly aware of that fact; instead of the end of a world warfare, a new, future world warfare, nuclear war, was begun, and has been continued up through the present date. The unnecessary long, useless, and ruinous war in post-President Kennedy Indo-China (as General MacArthur had warned), brought about the most crucial turn, downwards, in U.S. history to date.
Such is the general background needed to place MacArthur’s part in the initial phase of the war in Korea into perspective.
Thus, the deeper issue in respect to the Inchon landing itself, was the quality of mind required to understand the grave national-strategic issues embedded in General MacArthur’s insight into the effects of President Truman’s role in bringing on the war in Korea. Truman’s policy would have, implicitly, carried the war to the active brink of a state of thermonuclear warfare in that region.
Once the possibility of a Anglo-American nuclear response in Korea comes into consideration, the truth about the attacks against MacArthur by President Harry Truman and others, are essentially de-mystified. Step back for a moment to consider the situation in an invaded South Korea, and a new dimension of elements comes into play.
Consider the following relevant, and relatively “bare” facts on background.
The U.S.A. Enters World War III
The essential facts of the initially successful, “armored Blitzkrieg” into almost the entirety of the territory of South Korea, had established a situation which tended to assure a prolonged, slow-paced “slugging match” for the U.S.A. That was considered, initially, as the best option to be expected for the array of combat forces gathered in the battered southern tip of Korea. However, there was another aspect to the strategic situation inside Korea as a whole: the ghost in the woodwork of war then engaged within Asia, the Anglo-American nuclear (and also thermonuclear, global war-option.
No competent understanding of the actually global implications of the war in Korea at that time, could have been recognized then, except by a special quality of citizens during those immediate years. General MacArthur showed clearly that he did recognize those crucial future prospects which most among his immediate colleagues failed to foresee. This brings the matter of Korea into the proper perspective which MacArthur obviously employed, and which leading military and political associates concerned, evidently did not. That fact, which I have just now stated, is the really crucial matter to be considered, then, as also now. The crucial issue so situated is the crucial importance of shunning blind faith in what has already been experienced, to the degree that even most leading figures in warfare and other matters, turn our to have been more bunglers who stumble as if almost witlessly into the future, because they can never see the actually of history beyond the immediate period of a merely “practical man’s” presently moments’ ongoing developments in the actual course of future history.
The actual commitment to nuclear warfare, of the British empire and the Truman Administration, had been declared in the Summer of 1946, by both Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman’s U.S. administration. Bertrand Russell was a leading intellectual influence in this scheme. It was Russell who, in the late Summer of 1946, had already declared a commitment to a virtually world-wide “preventive nuclear war,” as he had done in widely published threats to this effect. At that time, it had been presumed in relevant public statements, that Russell had presumed that the Soviet Union did not yet possess effectively deployable strategic nuclear capabilities. The news that the Soviet Union had already developed such weapons, was a disappointment for “pacifist” Bertrand Russell, particularly when North Korea had launched its “Blitzkrieg” against South Korea.[1]
At the start of their “Blitzkrieg,” the North Korea forces had launched a very effective assault with armored forces led abruptly, and virtually without effective resistance, down toward the tip of South Korea. It was a war by North Korean forces which had been prompted, rather gleefully, by the anti-Franklin Roosevelt policies of Churchill and Truman. At that junction, General of the Armies MacArthur, then based in Japan, was deployed for the defense of South Korea. However, until General MacArthur had stipulated the Inchon landing, the prospect for the U.S. allies forces deployed into Korea faced a prolonged “slugging fest” which meant attempting to creep northward by “virtual inches of very bloody warfare.” However, that was avoided once MacArthur’s direction of the Inchon landing completely and quickly routed the North Korea forces from the region of South Korea.
With that development taken into account, the really deep issue respecting the Inchon landing, had been the need for a certain, favorable quality of mind in the strategic process which was adequate to meet the realities posed as a threatened nearness to a brink of thermonuclear warfare at that time. The actually grave danger to be considered in the matter of the Inchon landing, was not merely that decision itself, but, rather, the crucial factor to be considered was the role of the British empire of Churchill and Bertrand Russell in their shared intention to drive the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea and the U.S.A., into an actual thermonuclear war, a war to be organized in the special interests of the British empire: a prompt and successful decision at Inchon had been a global factor in the situation at that stage of affairs. World War II leading veterans blunted much of the immediate risk of actually thermonuclear warfare.
Once that fact, and its implications, are taken into account, the continuing issue from that time, to the present date, is the danger to humanity of a national leadership which lacks both the intellect and the moral outlook of mind needed at this present time of the greatest crisis in the known history of mankind. John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, had shown the needed qualities of leadership. The only case of a U.S. President, since that time, who ever threatened to show the needed insights and outlooks, had been to be seen in the repeatedly stated policy of President Ronald Reagan on the matter of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
My intention here, is to address that matter of the danger to society represented by a leadership which lacks the quality of insight shown by such truly great U.S. commanders such as MacArthur. He had had that quality; so had some other of the founders of our Republic, such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, or John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln, and so on. I focus my attention here on the specific quality of mind to be sought in a needed quality of leadership on which the fate of civilization depends, urgently, now depends, in its crucial moments of leadership of nations. It is war within lies essentially in the mind, not the battlefield otherwise, an effort on which the existence of civilization may be called to depend, urgently, at this juncture.
The Present Alternative
In my own experience, which I apply here, retrospectively, to the warfare in Korea, my own first clear insight into the implications of the warfare in Korea. came into a clear view in the interval 1956-57, when I had projected a virtually exact date for the outbreak of the deep recession which erupted in the forecast date of February 1957. That experience, which is reflected in my retrospective view of the developments in war-time Korea, assured me that the most essential distinction of the functional perfroming human mind, is the ability of such a developed mind to foresee rather deeply into the future of society. That particular quality of skill, is otherwise obvious in a retrospective view of the role of General MacArthur in strategic outlook.
The conclusion to be drawn from such observations as that which I have just presented here, is that the essential difference, in principle, between man and beast, in the potential specific to the human mind, the ability to foresee the onset of the future in a certain way, in a manner specific to General MacArthur’s insistence on an Inchon landing, a strategic thrust which transformed a state of virtual perpetual warfare in South Korea, into an early and brilliantly sweeping victory. MacArthur had patriotically outwitted Truman and Churchill, a fact which is not really astonishing when one might have examined the personal record of MacArthur.
“Really practical” men tend to make a bloody mess of everything in or about the likeness of a strategic mission of any kind.
The essential error among the nations of the world presently, has been the implicit presumption that thermonuclear warfare today is an actual option for the human species presently. Admittedly, there had been times when defense against war among nations on Earth had been a justified option. The advent of general thermonuclear warfare has eliminated that option. Any general warfare today, is thermo-nuclear warfare; and, thermo-nuclear warfare is presently war fought for the extinction of the human species. The truth of that matter presently, is to be recognized in the policies of mass-extermination of the human population which have been avowed by the empress known as Queen Elizabeth II, as her intention to the reduce the human species to no greater than approximately one billions persons, out of a present population of approximately seven billions. The very fact of the Queen’s population policies under conditions of thermonuclear means of warfare, now virtually assures that any general warfare is the conduct of war fought for the extinction of the human species.
The crucial fact of that matter, is the Queen’s “green policy.” Such a policy as that currently presented by the Queen, means a radical reduction of the potential existence of the members of the human species, which, in turn, means a policy for the extinction of the human species.
Nonetheless, from the standard of the tradition of the Olympian Zeus, the “radically green,” pro-genocidal policies set forth by Queen Elizabeth II, are not unique as doctrines of practice. Mass-exterminations, such as those against Christians by the ancient Roman Empire, are more typical than exceptional in the history of oligarchical cultures. The essential difference between ancient Rome and today’s British empire, is that today’s technologies are better suited to bringing about an assured extinction of the human species. Extinct policies have been practiced against entire cultures in earlier times. In the meantime, there is a virtually assured result of the launching of thermonuclear warfare under present technologies, not even from governments which demand no more than the kinds of “green” policies being promoted in Europe and North American presently.
Furthermore, there is no presently known evidence to presume that even a negligent policy of practice respecting threats from asteroids, comets, and meteors, might not be sufficient to bring about a general extinction of the human species, if effectively active measures of defense against such threats were not developed in the prospective future. Whatever, the actual findings turn our to have been, any factor of such a risk is already sufficient for decisive action against such factors of risk can not be tolerated.
The Present Aims of Warfare
No longer can civilization fairly expect to outlive the carnage of actually thermonuclear warfare. The continuation of the Solar system’s present track within the galaxy, portends reasonable expectations of changes in the course of mankind’s Earthly experience within that Solar system. So, the advent of thermonuclear-fusion technologies now, means the expectation of changes in the “life-style” of our Earth. Long before two billions years ahead, the Solar system, as we have presently known it, will not be particular habitable for our species.
That, in and of itself, is not necessarily “a bad thing.” The practical issue, is whether, or not, we are disposed to mobilize the noëtic mental powers specific to our species, to realize a certain rate of leaps in scientfic practice, for each typical generation. We have recently developed operating systems, positioned on Mars, which indicate not only the onset of mankind’s outreach into development of control of Mars, in particular, while also enabling the outreach to Mars by an automated industry developed under the surface of our Moon.
Furthermore, mankind has accomplished leaps in our power to perform useful functions within certain regions of the inner set of planetary orbits. These advances are to be associated with mankind’s leaps in advances within the relevant portions of the Solar System, leaps in the successive ordering of the scale of energetic levels of thermonuclear power imparted to mankind’s intentions, as such leaps forward were brought under consideration by such figures from the 1890s and beyond as Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
Presently, the leading threats to the human species include asteroids, comets, and meteors. Those challenges can not be met competently by presently standard means. They could be met, by foreseeable options ahead. Hopefully, those discoveries, and related practices, will be realized in a timely fashion. The results would represent a blessing directly opposite to the avowed intentions of the British imperial monarchy presently.
Presently, under the leading edge of British imperial perspectives, mankind in the trans-Atlantic, and some other regions, has pushed practices into a directly, mass-suicidal direction. The current British imperial monarchy, when taken into account as the true global empire which it currently still represents, is directing mankind’s policy-shaping in ways directly opposite to the requirements for the survival of the human species.
Presently, unless the policies typified by the Anglo-Saudi alliance are now promptly reversed, the presently likely outcome will be soon a virtual certainty of self-inflicted extinction of the human species. Nothing demonstrates that awful fate for mankind as clearly as the presently adopted “green genocide” policies, as uttered by such as the British monarchy.
It should be clear, that the nuclear warfare option introduced under the influence of the British imperial monarchy, is the truly most deadly enemy of mankind at this time. The policies which Harry Truman and other errant persons had promoted during the post-World War II interval to date, most now be recognized for the evil which they have actually represented. It is the challenge posed by the threats from asteroids, comets, and meteors, which must be adopted as the markers for the progress which must be realized henceforth. The only permissible wars will be those which the human species could successfully survive.
Five-Star General Douglas MacArthur is among the notable leaders from the past who supplies a model impetus for the destiny of the future of mankind. To make the future, it is required that the relevant thoughts shall be launched by the men and women whose profession is the creation of the actuality of mankind’s necessary future.
APPENDIX: A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
Among the deadliest errors in the study of history, has been the misguided belief in a deductive mode of interpreting what often pass for the study of history.
The necessary correction of the actually unscientific, deductive method of “factors” of”data” as a substitute for the top-down principles of a competent approach to history must be recognized as such. That does not mean that a bad method, such as “The Sherlock Holmes” practice of deduction, does not have any uses; it does mean that that method of deduction must never be trusted by well advised human beings. The only competent approach to a science of human history, must be discovered by means of, first, examining the foundations of the principle of life, from the relatively more primitive standpoint of the history of the evolution of sub-human species. Once that aspect of the situation is taken into account, we may, and, indeed, must, proceed to the higher domain of uniquely human characteristic of upward evolution; the “connecto” approach to human behavior must be excluded at all times. The Roman empire, for example, like the British empire of today, are expressions of the relatively depraved types of human beings who rely on the popular British brutishness of Conan Doyles’ “deductive” fantasies. The difference in method of mere animals from sane people, is the superseding of deductive methods, by the true noëtic principle of Classical irony.
-
U.S. SCRAPS FINAL PHASE OF EUROPEAN MISSILE SHIELD
By BBC News
March 17, 2013
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has scrapped the final phase of its European missile defence shield, citing development problems and funding cuts.
Upgraded interceptors were to have been deployed in Poland to counter medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and potential threats from the Middle East.
Mr Hagel said the threat had “matured” and that the US commitment to Nato missile defence remained “ironclad”.
The interceptors had been strongly opposed by the Russian government.
It complained that they would be able to stop Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and undermine its nuclear deterrent.
The US has always insisted that the missile shield was intended to protect against attacks by Iran and North Korea.
Analysts said Friday’s announcement could open the door to another round of talks between the US and Russia on nuclear arms reductions.
‘Shifting resources’
The dropping of the fourth and final phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) for missile defence was announced quietly at a news conference, reports the BBC’s Matt Wells in Washington.
Almost as an aside, Mr Hagel confirmed that in order to fund 14 new Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska by 2017 to guard against increased threats from North Korea, the SM-3 IIB programme – a land-based standard missile – would be “restructured”, our correspondent adds.
“The purpose was to add to the protection of the US homeland already provided by our current GBIs against missile threats from the Middle East,” Mr Hagel said.
“The timeline for deploying this programme had been delayed to at least 2022 due to cuts in Congressional funding. Meanwhile, the threat matures.
“By shifting resources from this lagging programme to fund the additional GBIs as well as advanced kill vehicle technology that will improve the performance of the GBI and other versions of the SM-3 interceptor, we will be able to add protection against missiles from Iran sooner while also providing additional protection against the North Korean threat.”
Mr Hagel promised that North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies in Europe would see no difference to their level of protection as a result, with the first three phases of the EPAA providing coverage of all of their territory as planned by 2018.
“Let me emphasise the strong and continued commitment of the United States to Nato missile defence. That commitment remains ironclad.”
Mr Hagel made no reference to Russia’s objections. Officials in Moscow had hinted that they would not consider further nuclear arms cuts if the SM-3 interceptors were deployed.
Our correspondent says defence spending is being squeezed in the US, and the Pentagon believes tough decisions have to be made about where the main threat lies.
“Cancelling phase 4 opens the door to another round of US-Russian nuclear arms reductions,” Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, told the Associated Press. “We give up nothing since phase 4 was not panning out anyway. This is a win-win for the United States.”
The decision was, however, criticised by Republicans in the Congress.
“President Obama’s reverse course decision will cost the American taxpayer more money and upset our allies,” said Representative Mike Rogers, who chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, which oversees ballistic missile defence.
Although North Korea is many years away from developing an effective inter-continental ballistic missile with nuclear capability, the mood in Washington is that the US needs to stay ahead of the threat posed by an increasingly belligerent regime in Pyongyang, he adds.
-
-
HAGEL ANNOUNCES CANCELLATION OF FOURTH PHASE EUROPEAN BMD PLAN
In his press conference March 15, where he announced plans to station 14 additional ground-based missile interceptors in Alaska, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel dropped a bombshell, which was picked up in an AP wire and rapidly spread around the world today: He said that the U.S. is scrapping the fourth phase of its missile defense plan for Europe.
As Voice of Russia notes in its coverage today, this fourth phase, with much faster interceptors, “had invoked the greatest objections from Russia.” Indeed, as the demonstration by now Russian Chief of Staff Gerasimov last May demonstrated, it is the fourth phase that would include interceptors fast enough to threaten Russia’s ICBM counterstrike capability. Both Russian and U.S. sources claim that the U.S. had not preannounced this decision to Russia, but had informed the Poles and Romanians of their intent. They also say that the work had been already sufficiently delayed that it would not have gone into effect before 2022.
The U.S. and Russian coverage both noted that there had been significant technical problems with the development of the system, and that the National Academy of Sciences and the Defense Science Board had both recommended that Phase 4 be cancelled because it wouldn’t work.
Asked about the impact of the decision on going ahead with a BMD site in Poland, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Miller said:
“It will have no impact on that. We will still go forward, as planned, with bases one through three. Phase three for the European phase-adaptive approach will involve deploying about 24 SM-32A interceptors, SM-3 interceptors including the 2A in Poland. Same timeline, same footprint of U.S. forces to support that.
“And, as the secretary said, same coverage of NATO Europe…
“In the fourth phase, in the previous plan, we would have added some additional—an additional type of interceptors, the so-called SM-32B would have been added to the mix in Poland.
“We no longer intend to—to add them to the mix, but we’ll continue to have the same number of deployed interceptors in Poland that will provide coverage for all of NATO in Europe.”
According to the New York Times coverage, aides to President Vladimir Putin said there would be no reaction from Russia until next week, after a briefing from U.S. officials.
A headline by the Itar-TASS news agency read: “U.S. abandons fourth phase of European missile defense system that causes the greatest objections from Russia.”
-
IT’S OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY ON MISSILE DEFENSE, FORMER OBAMA ARMS NEGOTIATOR TELLS RUSSIA
This was essentially the reply that Ellen Tauscher, the former chief negotiator for the Obama Administration, gave when she was asked by EIR correspondent, Bill Jones, about the Russian proposal for a global system of defense against asteroids and meteorites. Tauscher was addressing a March 12 forum of the Atlantic Council on missile defense.
Tauscher said: “In our missile defense system in Europe, we are dealing with simple physics. And according to that, our capable and limited system does not threaten Russia. I don’t see any chance of opening negotiations on that,”
Tauscher also indicated that she sees no need to begin discussions on the asteroid proposal since “this is not going to change the paradigm of the Russian military. It won’t change their mind on our missile defense system.” The ball, Tauscher indicated, was in the Russian court and they were going to have to change their position, not NATO or the U.S.
-
U.S. TO SCRAP EUROPE AMD OVER ‘LACK OF FUNDS’
Published on Mar 16, 2013
Washington has scrapped a key phase of its European missile defense shield, citing a lack of funds and development problems. The United States will deploy additional ground-based missile interceptors on its Pacific Coast instead, in what is said to be a response to Pyongyang’s recent nuclear threats.
-
OBAMA TELLS RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRI MEDVEDEV “AFTER MY ELECTION I WILL HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY” ON MARCH 26, 2012
Published on Mar 26, 2012
President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that if given “space,” he’ll have more flexibility “after my election.”
-
U.S. CANCELS PART OF MISSILE DEFENSE THAT RUSSIA OPPOSED
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and MICHAEL R. GORDON | The New York Times
MOSCOW — The United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues.
Russian officials here have so far declined to comment on the announcement, which was made in Washington on Friday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as part of a plan to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors to counter North Korea. The cancellation of some European-based defenses will allow resources to be shifted to protect against North Korea.
Aides to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said there would be no reaction until early next week, when they expect to be briefed by American officials.
But Russian news accounts quickly raised the possibility that the decision could portend a breakthrough in what for years has been a largely intractable dispute between Russia and the United States. A headline by the Itar-Tass news agency declared, “U.S. abandons fourth phase of European missile defense system that causes the greatest objections from Russia.”
Russian leaders on several occasions used meetings with President Obama to press their complaints about the missile defense program. At one such meeting, in South Korea last March, Mr. Obama was heard on a live microphone telling the outgoing Russian president Dmitri A. Medvedev in a private aside that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on missile defense after the November presidential election in November.
Pentagon officials said that Russia’s longstanding objections played no role in the decision to reconfigure the missile interceptor program, which they said was based on the increased threat from North Korea and on technological difficulties and budget considerations related to the Europe-based program.
“The missile defense decisions Secretary Hagel announced were in no way about Russia,” George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, said Saturday.
Still, other Obama administration officials acknowledged potential benefits if the decision was well-received in Moscow, as well as the possibility of continued objections given that the United States is not backing away from its core plan for a land-based missile shield program in Central Europe.
“There’s still an absolutely firm commitment to European missile defense, which is not about Russia; it’s about Iran these days,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If there are side benefits that accrue with Russia, so be it. But that wasn’t a primary driver.”
Regardless, some experts said it could help relations by eliminating what the Russians had cited as one of their main objections — the interceptors in the final phase of the missile shield that might have the ability to target long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are part of Russian’s nuclear arsenal.
The Obama administration has sought cooperation from Russia on numerous issues, with varying degrees of success. Russia generally has supported the NATO-led military effort in Afghanistan and has helped to restrict Iran’s nuclear program by supporting economic sanctions. But the two countries have been deeply at odds over the war in Syria, and over human rights issues in Russia. Most recently, Mr. Obama has said he would like further reductions in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, something Russia has said it would not consider without settling the dispute over missile defense.
American experts insisted that the Russians’ concern over the antimissile program was exaggerated and that the system would not have jeopardized their strategic missiles had the final phase been developed. That Russian concern has now been addressed.
“There is no threat to Russian missiles now,” said Steven Pifer, an arms control expert who has managed Russia policy from top positions at the State Department and the National Security Council. “If you listen to what the Russians have been saying for the last two years, this has been the biggest obstacle to things like cooperation with NATO.”
“Potentially this is very big,” said Mr. Pifer, now of the Brookings Institution. “And it’s going to be very interesting seeing how the Russians react once they digest it.”
In Washington, many officials have said they believe Russia’s real objections are not only about the particular capabilities of the missile shield but also about a more general political and strategic opposition to an expanding American military presence in Eastern Europe. Canceling only the final stage of the program does not address that concern, so it is possible that Russia’s position will remain unchanged.
Sean Kay, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University and expert in international security issue and Russian relations, said that the so-called fourth stage of the Europe-based missile defense program “was largely conceptual” and might never have been completed.
Eliminating that portion of the program made sense, Mr. Kay said. “In effect, by sticking with a plan that was neither likely to work in the last stage but was creating significant and needless diplomatic hurdles at the same time, we gained nothing,” he said. At least some of the canceled interceptors were to have been based in Poland, which will still host less-advanced interceptors.
In the past, efforts to restructure the antimissile program provoked sharp criticism in Poland, but this time reaction from Warsaw has been more muted. Analysts have said Poland’s main goal in hosting the interceptors has been having an American military presence there as a deterrent to Russia.
-
FORMER REAGAN AMBASSADOR LAMBASTES MISSILE DEFENSE PROJECT
Ambassador Jack Matlock, a former ambassador to the Soviet Union, attacked the planned European missile defense project which has aroused great concern in Russia. “The project is driven by the military-industrial complex and by some ‘true believers,’”Matlock said. Matlock then went on to talk about the SDI project of President Reagan (during which period of time he was the NSC person responsible for Russia). The Reagan proposal, he explained, was a collaborative proposal. “If Gorbachev ever said, ‘Let’s do it together,’ Reagan would have agreed,” Matlock said.
Under present conditions, he warned, “if we do missile defense, we have to do it with Russia and China. We have to do it together. This is what we should be looking at. Competition in a globalizing world doesn’t make much sense.” Later during the Q&A, in reply to a question from EIR, Matlock elaborated on the SDI debate in the Reagan Administration, indicating some of the back and forth about the program and the connection to nuclear reductions. “It is absurd to the believe the myth that the ‘SDI brought down the Soviet Union’ or that it was an attempt to create a new arms race,” Matlock said. “Reagan was willing to significantly reduce the nuclear arsenals, if he were able to proceed with the research on an SDI system. If it proved successful, he was willing to share it with the Russians. I asked Gorbachev in later years if there were any possibility that they missed finding common ground on the issue. Gorbachev indicated that he simply wanted to get rid of the program entirely.”
Matlock also attacked the attempt by the U.S. to pull the countries surrounding Russia away from Russian influence. “We have to get off the kick that we determine the fate of the world. We have to bring China and Russia into a psychology of cooperation.”
Matlock was speaking at a conference entitled : “Russia As a Global Power: Contending Views From Russia,” sponsored by the Elliott School of International Affairs. A number of Russian speakers were present on all the panels, all of whom, however, expressed great concern over the conditions of US- Russia relations, and over the rather concerted attempt by the West to demonize the Putin Government.
The reaction on the U.S. side was also not as divided as one might think from the title. Even old Soviet-bashers like Leon Aron from Heritage said that they did not want to break relations with Russia in the areas where there was agreement. (Aron had previously written that the U.S. should take a “pause” in the re-set.) One of the American panelists, Wayne Merry, from the American Foreign Policy Council, indicated that the Pentagon, in particular, was very interested in creating better relations with Russia.
-
RUSSIA WANTS U.S. TO EXPLAIN THE HAGEL ANNOUNCEMENT
“The U.S. statement needs a very serious explanation. We need to hold negotiations to understand what this statement is about, what the United States is scrapping in particular and what it is eventually implementing. Only after this will we be drawing conclusions,” said Sergei Koshelev, the head of the ministry’s Military Cooperation Department, Ria Novosti reported Tuesday morning.
Skepticism about the Hagel announcement was also voiced by Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of Russia’s Institute of the U.S. and Canada, who told Voice of Russia radio: “This approach does not mean that the U.S. gave up the idea of deploying counter-missiles in Poland. That is why we should not overestimate Washington’s decision. Currently the U.S. is experiencing economic problems. Washington’s European Phased Adaptive Approach implies that interceptors will be deployed once the Iranian threat emerges. So there are no serious changes in the position.”
Vladimir Yevseev, head of the Center of Political Studies, voiced similar skepticism, telling Voice of Russia radio: “As soon as financial problems are solved and the systems are technically perfect the U.S. will get down to the implementation of the plans it announced earlier. Now it concerns only a delay in implementation which does not provide the guarantees Russia is insisting on. Russia considers it a postponement and if so — why should Russia make any concessions to the U.S.?”
Vyacheslav Nikonov, a first deputy chairman of the State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Relations Committee, said that the move hardly changed the military balance with the U.S. In an interview with Interfax, he argued that the missile shield’s first three phases already offered enough of a threat. He added that the U.S. decision to instead station interceptors in Alaska created another problem, because this is again close to the country’s borders. “We are talking about a general build-up of American missile deployments,” Nikonov, a member of the governing United Russia faction, was quoted as saying.
Committee chairman Alexei Pushkov even said the move unmasked the Obama Administration’s dishonesty. “The U.S. told us over and over that a missile shield must be deployed in Poland to counter a rocket attack from North Korea. Now they are deploying it in Alaska. Why did they lie?” he wrote on Twitter. In comments carried by Interfax, Pushkov added that this justified Moscow’s reservations and showed the failure of Washington’s policies. “The U.S. has practically admitted that Russia was right and that they mislead us,” he was quoted as saying.
- U.S. Reassures Poland Nothing Has Changed in Missile Defense Plans -
U.S. defense and political officials on a previously scheduled visit to the Polish capital said shorter-range interceptors would still be based in Poland as part of NATO’s missile defense system in Europe. Wendy Sherman, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said the Polish site “will go forward as scheduled.” During a press conference in Warsaw along with a Polish official diplomat, Sherman was asked by a Polish reporter if the Hagel announcement was meant to mollify Russia. She answered that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told the Polish Foreign Minister of the decision before announcing it publicly, and that Russia was only notified after.
A Pentagon official gave the reassurance that “for Poland there is no change, because the phase-three system, which was always planned to be in Poland, is still now planned to be in Poland.” Madelyn Creedon, the U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary for Global Strategic Affairs, told the Associated Press, “It’s funded, it’s committed. That was our original plan, and we haven’t changed it.”
The U.S. missile defense system at Romania’s Deveselu military base is not affected either and will become operational in 2015 as planned, according to the Romanian Defense Ministry.
-
RUSSIA CALLS FOR RENEWED MISSILE DEFENSE DISCUSSIONS
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is calling for renewed negotiations between the U.S. and Russia on the missile defense issue and called U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, yesterday, to express that wish. Shoigu stressed during the telephone call that “no setbacks, and least of all chaos, should hamper dialogue between the military of the two great powers.” Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said, “We are concerned about the further development of the situation around the European missile shield, and our defense minister proposed to resume regular consultations on this issue,” reported RIA Novosti, yesterday.
According to a statement sent out yesterday afternoon by Pentagon spokesman George Little, Hagel agreed that discussions should continue at the deputy minister level and “reiterated that this is an important part of U.S.-Russian relations.”
According to RIA Novosti, Shoigu confirmed that he has invited Hagel to come to Moscow on May 23-24 for an international security conference. He also suggested that a Russia-NATO Council meeting could be held on the sidelines of that conference. Russia could unveil its plan for the West-2013 strategic exercise in which NATO has shown great interest and discuss military cooperation with NATO, Antonov said.
Two other visits to Moscow are scheduled in the coming weeks that will also take up the European ABM issue. On April 15, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon will make the long-scheduled visit, where he is supposed to deliver a message from President Obama to President Putin. Far more important is the upcoming Moscow visit by JCS Chairman General Martin Dempsey at the invitation of his Russian counterpart. Dempsey has repeatedly emphasized the priority he places on cooperation between the United States, Russia, and China, to avoid the “Thucydides Trap” of inevitable conflict between rising and stagnant powers.
-
THREATENING RUSSIA AND CHINA: THE “RETARGETING” OF THE U.S. GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM
The U.S. is developing the fourth stage of global missile defence for retargeting the system to the Far East, said Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director of the Institute for the USA and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Americans are planning their actions irrespective of anything Moscow says or does. They ignore this fact. Moscow can laud or can ignore, or can say yes. But this is done not for Moscow. This is done because the United States decided to specify its strategic priorities and reorient them to the Far East, for example,” Kremenyuk told Itar-Tass on Monday.
“This is the U.S. matter. The American administration voices concern about any real threat to be posed to allies or the U.S. itself,” the Russian expert said.
“As for Europe, Iran was always one of the arguments. But anything [with Iran] has moved and Washington is starting preliminary contacts that can convince Tehran to assume obligations – to create nuclear arms or not but in order not to pose threats to Americans,” Kremenyuk said. (Itar Tass)
-
U.S. COUNTER MISSILES IN EUROPE
by Andrey Fedyashin
Russia sees the US’s decision to cancel the fourth stage of its anti-missile system in Europe (the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach) as a technical delay and not as a principal decision. Once the US financial situation improves and counter missiles are technically perfect, this “break” will be over and the US counter-missiles will be deployed in Europe.
On March 15, the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the US had decided to freeze the deployment of its interceptors in Poland. Instead it plans to deploy 14 heavy counter-missiles in Alaska and to set one more radar station in Japan by 2017. Washington is also working on the deployment of silo based counter missiles in the East of the US.
In an interview with the Kommesant daily Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that Moscow did not consider Washington’s decision to cancel the fourth stage of its anti-missile system in Europe as a concession and does not see any principle changes in the US position in ABM. Most Russian experts agree with him. If such an approach meant that the US gave up its plans Moscow would welcome it. But this is out of the question, Pavel Zolotarev Deputy head of Russia’s Institute of the US and Canada, says.
“This approach does not mean that the US gave up the idea of deploying counter-missiles in Poland. That is why we should not overestimate Washington’s decision. Currently the US is experiencing economic problems. Washington’s European Phased Adaptive Approach implies that interceptors will be deployed once the Iranian threat emerges. So there are no serious changes in the position.”
Moscow thinks that the US has to adjust its plans on ABM in Europe due to the reduction of the Pentagon’s budget by $45 billion. Also the systems the US wanted to deploy in Europe are yet to be improved, Vladimir Yevseev, head of the center of political studies, says.
“As soon as financial problems are solved and the systems are technically perfect the US will get down to the implementation of the plans it announced earlier. Now it concerns only a delay in implementation which does not provide the guarantees Russia is insisting on. Russia considers it a postponement and if so – why should Russia make any concessions to the US?”
Sergey Ryabkov and Deputy State Secretary Rose Gottemoeller are to meet on Monday or on Tuesday in Geneva. It is very likely that they will touch upon this issue. In the current situation we should not expect any new breakthrough in disarmament, Yevseev says.
“Russia’s position is the following – In 2010 Russia and the US signed a new strategic arms reduction treaty in Prague and it is necessary first of all to implement it. Since the moment the agreement was signed it will take 7 years to implement it. Why should we sign a new treaty now?”
Moscow is ready to continue the dialogue on disarmament with the US but it will also continue to insist on signing judicial binding agreements which guarantee that the US anti-missile system is not targeted against Russian strategic nuclear forces.
-
SHIFT IN U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM AIMED AT CONTROL OVER ARCTIC RESOURCES: FORMER MI5 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
The primary goal of the US plans to bolster missile defense in Alaska isn’t about tackling a North Korean threat, but putting a claim on the natural resources of the Arctic, former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon explained.
The Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that development and funding problems have forced the US to give up a key part of its Eastern European missile defense plan.
The priority will now be given to efforts aimed at preventing a possible North Korean nuclear attack, which would require adding 14 new interceptors to the 26 already placed in Alaska.
-
-
Former intelligence officer for MI5, Annie Machon, believes that the North Korean threat is just as unrealistic for the US as the one from Iran, with control over natural resources once again being Washington’s true aim.
“What we’re looking at – at this point – is North Korea being the ‘useful idiot’, a pretext for America to defend a resource-rich part of the world. When I was in MI5, the one thing we were always taught in terms of assessing the threat from any sort of source or a country: one – do they have the capability; two – do they have the intention. Now, of course, North Korea has very loudly said that they have the intention to try and attack America, but certainly doesn’t have the capability at this point.”
“We all know that Iran isn’t a real threat to America’s interests. So, it’s interesting now that the focus is moving to an overtly aggressive, but very small and incapable country away from Iran. I hope it’s not a feint to make people stop watching Iran, stop watching the US government’s lies trying to find as excuse to attack Iran.”
“North Korea is a patsy, used to put up this new missile defense in Alaska. And the key part is that there’s been this covert war to control the diminishing resources of the world, which is waged across continents – between, certainly, the US and China over the last decade. And what we’re looking at now is, I think, a very careful geopolitical strategy to control and put bases in Alaska because anyone, who has Alaska can control the Arctic area. And, as the arctic area melts more quickly, more countries are going to fight for the resource-rich area as the ice recedes. America, by having these defenses in Alaska, will be very well-placed to protect its economic interest in that area.”
-
RUSSIA STUDYING U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE MOVES, STILL SEEKS GUARANTEES
APRIL 24, 2013
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Russia is studying changes to the U.S. missile defense program, but still wants guarantees that the system would not be used against Russia, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday.
U.S. and NATO plans to build an anti-missile shield around Western Europe to protect against attack from Iran and North Korea have been a major irritant in relations with Russia, which fears the system’s interceptors could eventually shoot down its long-range nuclear missiles.
The Pentagon said last month it would station additional missile interceptors in Alaska in response to North Korean threats and at the same time forgo a new type of interceptor that would have been deployed in Europe.
This latter type of missile had caused most concern to Moscow, which believed it could be used to shoot down Russian strategic missiles. U.S. officials hope the change will end the standoff with Moscow.
Lavrov said he discussed the issue in his talks at NATO headquarters on Tuesday where he met NATO ministers, including his U.S. counterpart John Kerry.
“We are studying the proposals conveyed by the American side to us to further deepen the dialogue on missile defense cooperation. We are studying these proposals and the current developments and plans of the United States in this field,” Lavrov told a news conference at NATO headquarters.
“We are ready for dialogue but cooperation could be only equitable, with clear-cut guarantees,” Lavrov said.
-
U.S. DISCUSSING GIVING RUSSIA MISSILE DEFENSE DATA
By | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency says that the Obama administration has discussed declassifying key data on U.S. missile defense in order to provide it to Russia.
The administration has been exploring how to ease Russian concerns that the U.S. missile defense shield is aimed at countering Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Arms control advocates have suggested that revealing missile interceptor capabilities could provide a breakthrough on an issue that Russia says stands in the way of nuclear arms reductions. But doing so would provoke charges by Republicans that the administration is compromising national security to appease Moscow.
Under questioning at a hearing on Wednesday, Missile Defense Agency director Vice Adm. James Syring said that he has discussed declassifying data, including the speed of interceptors, with senior Defense Department officials.
Missile defense has long been a contentious issue between the United States and Russia. The U.S. has said that its capabilities are aimed at countering threats from Iran and North Korea. It says that its interceptors would not pose a threat to Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal.
Obama has twice altered U.S. missile defense plans in Europe that Russia had stridently opposed. He has said the decisions were about better addressing threats. But Republicans have charged that they were aimed at soothing Russian objections.
-
TIME FOR KERRY TO FACE FACTS
As America’s top diplomat heads to Moscow, here are some tough questions he needs to answer about the Obama administration’s flawed nuclear treaty.
BY ROBERT JOSEPH, ERIC EDELMAN | Foreign Policy
On the third anniversary of the signing of New START, the Obama administration’s strategic arms agreement with Russia, Secretary of State John Kerry published the administration’s best case for the success of the treaty, titled “Time to Face Facts.” In it, he urges us to “relentlessly” follow the facts about the treaty. We agree, but by doing so, we are led to very different conclusions from his about the treaty’s purported accomplishments. And with Kerry in Moscow this week, reportedly to discuss, among other issues, following up on National Security Advisor Tom Donilon’s discussions with Russian officials about pursuing additional reductions in nuclear force, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Let’s begin with the basic purpose of strategic arms reductions agreements: to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the parties and strengthen U.S. national security. While praising the treaty as working “exactly as advertised,” Kerry fails to mention anything about actual cuts in nuclear forces, in stark contrast with his comments prior to ratification, when, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he repeatedly emphasized White House talking points that the agreement would reduce the maximum number of strategically deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear forces by one-third. Those of us who testified that this was simply false — because of the bomber-counting rule and the fact that the treaty would require cuts in U.S. forces only — were either ignored or derided. Our assessments of the treaty as unilateral disarmament in the guise of a two-party agreement were summarily rejected.
So what are the facts? In the initial New START data exchange, Moscow announced that it was already well below the new limits on deployed delivery vehicles set by the treaty. This should have come as no surprise. The Russian defense minister at the time, Anatoly Serdyukov, had earlier told the Duma, “We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons” because Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons were already under the treaty limits for both warheads and launchers. Contradicting statements by Kerry and Obama, Serdyukov announced that Russia intended to build up to the treaty limits.
In other words, New START provided Moscow an incentive to go up, not down, in strategic nuclear arms. As for the United States, New START will reduce the number of deployed delivery vehicles by about one-fourth. Given these facts, it is perhaps understandable why the new secretary of state chose to say nothing about nuclear reductions, which was, after all, the treaty’s ostensible objective. The one-sided nature of the actual reductions certainly looks more like unilateral disarmament than mutual, bilateral reductions.
While ignoring the facts on nuclear reductions, Kerry praises the treaty on two grounds. First, he declares that, because U.S. and Russian inspection teams have conducted multiple on-site visits, the “verification regime works.” This assertion — that “boots back on the ground” equals effective verification — was a principal argument of treaty supporters.
But again, the facts belie the conclusion. Because the treaty eviscerates telemetry exchanges and ends the on-the-ground monitoring of Russia’s missile production facility, the United States is no longer able to argue credibly what Kerry asserts — that New START strengthens mutual confidence and predictability.
Second, Kerry lauds New START for setting a positive example that will elicit greater cooperation from others, increase pressure on states like Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear ambitions, and strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. Unfortunately, the facts tell a different story. Since the ratification of New START, Pyongyang and Tehran have continued to advance their nuclear and missile programs. The recent talks with Iran are widely viewed as a failure, and North Korea’s threats of nuclear strikes on its neighbors and the United Sates speak for themselves. And finally, the much-hyped reset in U.S.-Russia relations as a consequence of New START has totally failed to produce more constructive Russian policies on Iran (the 2010 U.N. sanctions notwithstanding) and Syria, and it has done nothing to modify Russian military doctrine, which still envisions the United States and its NATO allies as the principal threat to its interests.
Finally, Kerry reminds us that Obama intends to pursue further reductions in nuclear weapons, “strategic and nonstrategic, deployed and non-deployed.” But this fact should concern those who believe in a strong and secure America able to deter and defend against attacks on the U.S. homeland and on the country’s friends and allies. For this administration, ideology trumps reality. No other country has adopted the U.S. policy of “no new nuclear capabilities” or unilateral disarmament. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and others are not following the U.S. example; all are modernizing and expanding their forces. The governments in London and Paris have restated their commitment to ensuring a modern deterrent in light of the uncertain, dangerous world in which we live. The Obama administration stands alone, leading from the front, but with no followers and in the wrong direction.
Although another agreement with Russia is possible, such an agreement would likely be even worse than New START and would have an even more detrimental effect on the U.S. ability to provide for extended deterrence and effective missile defenses. Here, the administration’s willingness to pay a high price through concessions on missile defenses to Russia and China is clear, and ironies abound. It is the facts in Northeast Asia that presumably drove Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s decision to deploy 14 additional interceptors in Alaska (a capability Kerry has long derided but now touts to America’s Asian allies). Hagel, however, also revealed the decision to end the Aegis SM-3 IIB program that was to constitute Phase 4 of U.S. plans for missile defenses in Europe. This concession, referred to as a “significant signal” by former Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, was meant to entice Russia to the negotiating table — a gift for which the administration received nothing in return. Moscow’s predictable reaction was to demand more, just as it did when Obama canceled missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in September 2009, again with nothing in return.
When Kerry says it’s time to face facts, he is right. We hope he will take his own advice.
-
RUSSIAN ATTACK SUBMARINE SAILS INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO UNDETECTED FOR WEEKS
BY: Bill Gertz | Washington Free Beacon
August 14, 2012
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.
The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.
One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.
“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.
The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.
“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.
“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.
The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.
Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.
The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.
Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.
Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, “It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.
The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.
The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.
In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.
Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.
A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.
That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.
It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.
Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.
Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.
The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.
Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.
Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.
Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: “We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends.” The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.
Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.
Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.
Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.
The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.
The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.
-
SPECIAL REPORT: RUSSIA MOVES NUCLEAR MISSILES TO CUBA
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, August 2, 2012
A report out of Pravda quotes President Vladimir Putin as saying that Russia has moved strategic nuclear missiles to Cuba in response to the United States’ continuing efforts to encircle Russia in Eastern Europe.
The article, written by Lyuba Lulko, explains how Russia is reviving its military operations in Vietnam, Cuba and the Seychelles.
In October 2001, President Vladimir Putin announced that the Lourdes radio-electronic center on the island had been shut down as a “gift” to President George W. Bush on the basis of promises given by Bush that the U.S. missile defense system would never be deployed in Eastern Europe.
However, with the missile defense system under the auspices of NATO now reaching “interim operational capability” in Europe at the end of May, that promise has been shattered.
“The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba,” the report quotes Putin as saying.
“With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles “Oak” on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this,” added Putin.
According to the report, Cuba, which was angered by the original decision to shut down the radio-electronic center, has agreed to allow Russia to locate the missiles on Cuban territory because of its fears over new U.S. military bases in Colombia.
Whether the quotes attributed to Putin are accurate or not remains to be seen. They appear nowhere outside of the original Pravda piece.
Once the primary mouthpiece of the Soviet Communist Party, Pravda’s influence has now declined rapidly. The online version is managed by former journalists who worked for the original newspaper but other than that the two versions are separate entities.
Speculation that Russia was re-building its nuclear infrastructure in preparation for a potential future conflict came with the news that 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters were being constructed in Moscow to be completed by the end of 2012.
Officials justified the move by saying they wanted the entire population of Moscow to be able to reach a nuclear bomb shelter within minutes. China has also built huge underground bomb shelters, outpacing the United States whose bomb shelters from the cold war era still remain as they were at the time or have been decommissioned.
The prospect of Russia moving nuclear missiles to Cuba obviously harks back to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which marked the closest moment that the world came to World War III and a potential nuclear holocaust.
Given the gravity of Putin’s alleged statements, don’t expect to wait too long for Russian authorities to deny the quotes featured in the Pravda report.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
-
VENEZUELA RECEIVES FIRST SHIPMENT OF RUSSIAN AIR DEFENSE MISSILE SYSTEMS
APRIL 5, 2013
(translation)
(Infodefensa.com) Caracas – Air defense missile systems arrived at the port of Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, from Russia, containing mobile missile system components and long range anti-aircraft missiles S-300VM Antey-2500 , according to local newspaper Notitarde . In the images shown, there are trucks transporting launch tubes for missiles 9M82M . The newspaper counted at least twelve tubes.
The S-300VM Antey-2500 missile system was acquired by Venezuela in September 2009 , to be operated by the Aerospace Defense Command Structure (CODAI), which is assigned to the Strategic Operational Command (CEO) of the National Armed Forces.
The missile systems are made up of several components including a command post, circular radar, missile launch vehicles, transport vehicles recharging missiles, 9M82M missiles, and maintenance vehicles. The S-300VM Antey-2500 missile is capable of knocking down aerial targets (i.e. ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft) within a radius of 200 kilometers, up to 30,000 feet.
-
-
As far as we know, Venezuela has also purchased Russian mobile missile system S-125 Pechora 2M , short range, and Buk-M2 , medium range. The Pechora 2M has apparently already been received in its entirety, while the Buk-M2 missile systems are pending delivery.
-
PUTIN: CYPRUS CASE SHOWS HOW RISKY INVESTMENTS ARE IN THE WEST
In his interview with Germany’s ARD TV last night, Russian President Vladimir Putin also addressed the Cyprus issue, saying that indeed, Russian investors moved their funds to zones such as Cyprus, because “they did not feel they could rely on the Russian financial system. And, indeed, it was not reliable. Just recall the year 1998—an economic collapse, or the year 2000 (and that was already our common problem) — again there were widespread fears regarding the future of the financial system.
“Forfeiture of investors’ funds, including of Russian origin, wherever it happens, in Cyprus or in other places, undermines credibility of the banking system of the entire Eurozone.” Putin also said that the Cyprus events “have shown how risky and insecure investments in Western financial institutions can be… Is that fair, that people invested their funds, merely deposited their money with banks without breaking any laws, whether the laws of Cyprus or those of the European Union, just to see 60% of their deposits forfeited? They did not violate any rules.”
Putin also lashes out on the money-laundering issue: “As for allegations that Cyprus was, as they say in the financial community, a place for laundering dirty money, they have to be supported with hard facts. One of the basic rules that we all are supposed to know and observe is the rule of the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can we ignore that? How can we accuse all people concerned of being crooks? Then anybody can be declared a crook. “Did we create that offshore zone? No, we didn’’t. It was the European Union that created it. Or, rather, it was created by the Cyprus authorities with the connivance of the European Union. And is it the only such zone created by countries of the European Union? Are we not aware of offshore island zones in Great Britain or of other such zones? They do exist. If you consider such zones a bad thing, then close them. Why do you shift responsibility for all problems that have arisen in Cyprus to investors regardless of their nationality (British, Russian, French or whatever else)?”
-
PUTIN GIVES RUSSIAN OFFICIALS THREE MONTHS TO CLOSE THEIR FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS
By Associated Press
MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin has given Russian officials a three-month deadline to close their foreign bank accounts or face dismissal.
Putin’s decree released Tuesday by the Kremlin obliges officials to file their income declarations by July 1. Putin’s chief of staff, Sergei Ivanov, said they will have to close their bank accounts by that time. Those who have real estate abroad will be required to explain how they could make the purchase, and those who fail will face being ousted.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized there will be “no untouchables.”
Putin first announced the measure in his state-of-the nation address in December as part of efforts to fight corruption, but the corresponding bills got bogged down in the Kremlin-controlled lower house, so Putin ended up ordering the move by decree.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
CYPRUS ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, ‘TROIKA WILL TAKE EVERYTHING AND PUSH RUSSIANS OUT’
The worst is yet to come for Cyprus as the banks of Northern Europe are set to further rape and pillage the economy here.
Bureaucrats and technocrats in Nicosia have been busy trying agree on an even more horrible haircut than the each of the previous Troika hatchet jobs, and now the EU’s deadly pathogen has begun to spread to the far corners of the country, hitting the southern seaside tourist town of Pathos.
Cyprus managed to avoid the initial danger of an all out bank run and the potential for mass rioting this week, which is probably down to the fact that no Cypriot wants to see their country become a lawless banana republic in the Mediterranean. But that calm will not last for long if banking parasites continue to pressurize the economy here…
-
-
MOSCOW: NO BAILOUT FOR RUSSIAN SAVERS ON CYPRUS
MOSCOW (AP) — A senior Russian Cabinet member says his government won’t protect Russian depositors who are losing money in Cyprus but may offer assistance to some Russian state companies.
First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov said in televised remarks that it would be a “great pity” if Russians lose their money in Cyprus, but added that the Cabinet won’t take any action to soften the blow.
He added, however, that while his government sees no reason for offering any assistance to Cyprus, it may take unspecified action to help reduce the damage for Russian state companies.
Big depositors at Cyprus’ largest bank, including some Russians, may be forced to accept losses of up to 60 percent, far more than initially estimated under the European rescue package to save the country from bankruptcy.
-
CYPRUS CRISIS: MOSCOW WILL NOT BAIL OUT RUSSIAN SAVERS
By BBC News
APRIL 1, 2013
The Russian government says it will not compensate Russian savers who have lost money in the Cyprus banking crisis.
Russians are believed to have billions of euros in Cypriot accounts and deposits above 100,000 euros (£84,300; $128,200) in the two biggest banks could be reduced by as much as 60%.
Such losses would be “a great shame”, First Deputy PM Igor Shuvalov said, “but the Russian government won’t take any action in that situation”.
Cyprus now restricts cash withdrawals.
A 10bn-euro bailout from the EU and IMF – required to keep the debt-laden Cypriot economy afloat – will only be granted if Cyprus itself raises 5.8bn euros, most of which looks likely to come from depositors with more than 100,000 euros in Bank of Cyprus and Laiki (Popular Bank).
‘Haircut’ for depositors
Laiki, the second largest bank, is being wound up and folded into Bank of Cyprus, the biggest bank.
Speaking on the Russian state TV channel Rossiya 1, Mr Shuvalov said Russian money in Cyprus included some that had been taxed and some that had not.
He said the Russian government would still look at cases where there were “serious losses, involving companies in which the Russian state is a shareholder”. That review would take place in Russia, and “for this it would certainly not be necessary to help the Republic of Cyprus”, he said.
Many of the large-scale foreign investors in Cyprus are Russian – and in many cases they have taken advantage of the island’s status as an offshore tax haven. Some politicians have accused Cyprus of acting as a hub for Russian money-laundering – an allegation rejected by Cypriot officials.
After years of large-scale capital flight from Russia there is now a Kremlin drive to repatriate Russian money. The government has introduced tighter monitoring of foreign bank accounts held by Russian state employees.
Bank of Cyprus depositors with more than 100,000 euros could lose up to 60% of their savings as part of the bailout, officials say.
The central bank says 37.5% of holdings over 100,000 euros will become shares.
Up to 22.5% will go into a fund attracting no interest and may be subject to further write-offs.
The other 40% will attract interest – but this will not be paid unless the bank performs well.
The fear is that once the unprecedented capital controls – which are in place for an indefinite time – are lifted, the wealthiest will rush to move their deposits abroad, the BBC’s Mark Lowen reports from Nicosia.
Cyprus has become the first eurozone member country to bring in capital controls to prevent a torrent of money leaving the island and credit institutions collapsing.
Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades has said the financial situation has been “contained” following the deal.
He has also stressed that Cyprus has no intention of leaving the euro, stressing that “in no way will we experiment with the future of our country”.
-
PUTIN HITS OUT AT “DANGEROUS” CYPRUS BANK DEPOSIT LEVY
By Lidia Kelly and Alexei Anishchuk
March 18, 2013
-
-
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized on Monday a levy imposed by the European Union on bank deposits in Cyprus as unfair and setting a dangerous precedent.
“While assessing the proposed additional levy on bank accounts in Cyprus, Putin said that such a decision, should it be made, would be unfair, unprofessional and dangerous,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists.
Russian citizens account for the majority of the billions of euros held in Cypriot banks by foreign depositors, and Russian banks are heavily exposed to the island as a favored offshore centre for big business.
The levy, imposed as part of a 10 billion euro bailout, sparked panic among Cypriots over the weekend and hit Russian and other European financial markets on Monday.
As the Cyprus parliament prepares to vote on the measure on Monday, the government in Nicosia was working on a plan to soften the blow for smaller savers.
Russian Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Shatalov earlier said the tax would be acceptable if it was levied only on interest earned by savers.
There are almost 70 billion euros in deposits held in Cyprus. A little less than half that is held by non-residents, most believed to be Russian.
At the end of last year, Russian banks had around $12 billion on deposits with Cypriot banks and corporate deposits accounted for another $19 billion, according to Moody’s credit-rating agency.
That figure is more than twice the size of the bailout, which had been repeatedly delayed amid concerns from other EU states that the close business and banking ties with Russia made Cyprus a conduit for money-laundering.
It ranks as the largest source of foreign direct investment into Russia – money that is largely Russian in origin.
NO DECISION ON RUSSIAN LOAN
Russia has made no decision yet on whether to extend the duration or ease the terms of a sovereign loan to Cyprus, a government source told Reuters earlier on Monday.
European Union officials have said they expect Russia to extend the 2.5 billion euro ($3.27 billion) loan by five years, until 2021, and refinance terms.
Cyprus’ Finance Minister Michael Sarris had planned to travel to Moscow on Monday for meetings to try to pin down new loan terms. A second Russian government source said Sarris would now travel on Wednesday.
The levy on savers, meanwhile, should not alter domestic capital flows, the news agency Prime quoted Deputy Economy Minister Andrei Klepach as saying.
Officials have also said Russian investors are interested in buying a majority stake in Cyprus Popular Bank and increasing their holdings in Bank of Cyprus – the two biggest banks on the Mediterranean island.
The involvement of any Russian investors – private or state – in recapitalization of the island’s struggling banks is still a matter for discussion, the first government source said.
“There has been no decision yet,” the source said.
-
CYRPUS PARLIAMENT REJECTS BANK LEVY EUROPEAN UNION THREATENS BANK’S MAY NEVER RE-OPEN
The Cypriot parliament has rejected a critical draft Bill that would have seized part of people’s bank deposits in order to qualify for a vital international bailout.
The bill, which had been amended on Tuesday morning to shield small deposit holders from the deposit tax, was rejected with 36 votes against, 19 abstentions and zero votes in favour. One deputy was absent.
Hundreds of protesters outside parliament cheered in jubilation and sang the national anthem when they heard the bill had not passed.
Cyprus will now have to come up with an alternative plan to raise the money.
If it does not do so, it will not qualify for external rescue loans, the country’s banks face collapse and the country could go bankrupt.
Cyprus banks ‘may never reopen’
German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble fired a warning shot over Cyprus’ economic status. He has warned that it is unclear whether the banks in Cyprus will ever be able to open again.
Banks in Cyprus have been shut since Saturday to avoid a run while the tiny Mediterranean country tries to negotiate a rescue for its economy.
Wolfgang Schaeuble said two of Cyprus’s big banks are being propped up solely by emergency liquidity from the European Central Bank that is contingent on all sides agreeing on a rescue package.
“Someone needs to explain this to the Cypriots,” Mr Schaeuble told German public television ZDF.
Politicians in Cyprus have voted to reject a bailout deal that would have seized up to 10% of bank deposits to prevent a collapse of the country’s banks.
GERMANY and the EU has now resorted to extortion basically they are saying give us the money or we close your banks and the country goes completely bankrupt overnight ,loose a little or loose everything.
-
YAKUNIN: ‘DAMAGING TO RUSSIA-EU RELATIONS’
March 19, 2013 (LPAC) — Russia blasted the Cyprus deposit robbery yesterday, as estimates were that Russian and Ukrainian depositors alone would lose billions of euros they had in Cypriot banks, and investment of these funds back into Russia would be affected to an even greater degree. President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of officials today that the EC scheme ws “unfair, unprofessional, and dangerous.”
According to Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, EC and IMF leaders did not even consult Russia before announcing the Cyprus bank robbery, and that although a EU2.5 billion Russian loan constituted the only assistance the Cyprus government has received during the past year’s crisis. The loan had been under discussion for extension and restructuring, but Siluanov said March 18 this would now have to be “further considered” since the EC had acted unilaterally in such a manner.
The Financial Times quoted “Vladimir Yakunin, head of state-owned Russian Railways and a close associate of Mr. Putin, [who] warned that the proposal could be damaging for Russian-EU relations. ‘Everyone knows that one-third of the deposits belong to Russian companies and individuals,’ Mr. Yakunin said. How does such a decision get made, and without even consulting with Russia?… They are solving their problems at our expense,’ he said.”
Russian corporations (including banks) and individuals are estimated to hold about EU20-25 billion in deposits on Cyprus. Russian bank stocks fell very sharply, by 5-7%, on today, equal to the worst-affected banks in Spain and Italy.
-
TROOPS BETRAYED IN CYPRUS BANK GRAB…AS RUSSIANS SIEZE £2bn
FURY erupted yesterday as it emerged that rich Russians withdrew £2billion BEFORE a tax raid on bank savings in Cyprus was announced.
The revelation came as Eurozone ministers proposed a plan to protect investors with under 100,000 euros (£85,700).
But British troops on the Mediterranean island were left fearing they may still lose out as the UK Government watered down a guarantee to safeguard their cash.
An earlier scheme to grab 6.75 per cent of smaller savings would see an estimated 60,000 British ex-pats — with £1.7billion in Cypriot banks — potentially losing thousands.
The controversial one-off tax was announced on Saturday as part of a 10billion euro bailout.
But Russian oligarchs and big investors emptied accounts in the days beforehand, prompting claims they were tipped off by bank insiders. A source told The Sun: “It leaked out. Bankers warned their best clients. Government officials warned their friends and relatives.
“Billions disappeared from accounts in days, most from accounts held by Russians.”
Russians are by far the biggest overseas investors in Cyprus, with a stake estimated at 20billion euros. There are accusations criminals use the island for money-laundering. Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday called the tax “unfair and dangerous”.
A vote on the levy was postponed as hundreds of protesters gathered at the parliament building in Nicosia.
There was anger too in the House of Commons as it emerged that the 3,250 British troops and civilian staff in Cyprus will not all be fully protected. The MoD admitted they will only be covered for “reasonable losses” and each case will be decided on its merits “rather than automatic, blanket coverage”. Shadow armed forces minister Kevan Jones said: “It is absolutely vital that no member of our Armed Forces is out of pocket.”
The crisis fuelled fears of a run on banks in other troubled Eurozone economies such as Spain and Ireland.
Stock markets dived with more than £1.8billion wiped from the value of Barclays, which has a branch in Cyprus. The FTSE 100 closed down 31 points, mirroring falls in Germany and France.
-
JIM SINCLAIR: ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN HISTORY AND GOLD
By King World News
March 16, 2013
“The wire reports on the Cyprus situation are working overtime to try to make the case that 80% of the deposits belong to the people of Cyprus, and only 20% of the deposits belong to the Russians. That’s absolutely false. After 1985, when the ‘Robber Barrons’ of Russia took over the general economics of Russia, that was the transformation from the KGB to private business. The primary place for exported Russian funds was Cyprus.
Now, there is one leader in the world that would be very dangerous to challenge and that is Putin of Russia….
“What’s just happened is the IMF has backed up, lauded, supported, and publicized, as if it were a victory, the taking of 10% of what really turns out to be 80% of Russian ‘black money.’ Russian ‘black money’ is KGB money, now in business. The leader of Russia (Putin) was a former KGB official. Whose money do you think they have taken? This is the biggest mistake the IMF could possibly have ever made.”
Eric King: “Jim, it’s unimaginable to me, but, incredibly, just ten days ago in a KWN interview you warned that you don’t want to anger Russian leader Putin because he and Russia will punish the West in the gold market. Can you talk about how this is going to impact the gold market beginning on Monday?”
Sinclair: “What would you rather have, an insured bank account by the BIS, FDIC, ECB, when any government can come in and take 10% of your account and treat that as if you are paying a tax for monies that were lost because of devious actions by the banks themselves, or gold?”
Eric King: “Will the Russians take their revenge in the gold market? Is that one of the places they will seek revenge?”
Sinclair: “The answer is that this is one of the most important events in modern times for the popularity of holding gold rather than holding fiat money. This is the catalyst that will propel gold through the $1,600 level. To prevent a break above $1,600 in gold would take extraordinary efforts on the part of any manipulator in the marketplace.
It’s very dangerous in doing business with the Russians, to lose their money. Revenge will be very much a part of the motivation for what happens from this point forward. This type of event will take us out of the $1,500s and we may never see those prices again in our lifetimes.”
-
JIM SINCLAIR: THE NEXT DANGER AFTER PUTIN CRUSHED IMF IN CYPRUS
Sinclair: “The concept that our financial leaders are in some sense geniuses that foresee the future and calculate every move based on their ability to divine what will be the result of their actions, is absolutely false. The IMF made a massive mistake here.
The IMF has now put itself into a very difficult position. The IMF must now support Cyprus, even in the face of the rejection of the attempted confiscation of partial bank deposits, or let the Cyprus banking system seek its own solutions to its banking problems, which would be Russian Corporations, or Russia itself.
If Russia was to save the Cyprus banking institutions, then, basically, a sovereign nation has trumped the IMF.
“I believe this is unacceptable to the IMF because it would mean that the IMF would not carry the clout which it has carried over the years as a group of many nations. If one nation can turn the switch ‘off’ against the IMF, it’s going to be very hard to turn that switch back ‘on’ at the IMF.
This now rejected proposal of a tax on depositors was a total shift in strategy that had existed so far in the rescue operations of banks. If you change your strategy, you break a promise because you have acted in a certain way where all other major nations are concerned.
If continually over years you have a strategy, and then all of the sudden decide that, well, Cyprus is too small or that the Russians are not in your league socially, and you let Cyprus go on its own and Russia makes the repair, the IMF loses by having broken a promise.
You create promises with nations not necessarily by your word, but most certainly by your actions. The actions up to now have been consistent in that no depositors would be injured. The central banks have worked together, either through swaps or through direct actions in order to meet any and all contingencies. That simply cannot stop now, especially in light of what’s just happened in Cyprus.
If there is a spread to other smaller countries of the fear of confiscation from the depositors in order to meet the obligations of their errant banks, you will begin bank runs everywhere.”
Eric King: “Can the IMF recover from this?”
Sinclair: “Yes, but it will be very difficult. The IMF only has one choice if it wishes to remain the spokesperson monetarily for the world, and that choice is to rescue the Cyprus banking system, exactly the same way they treated Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc.”
Eric King: “How much of a victory is this for Putin and Russia?”
Sinclair: “It’s a huge victory. Even though most people won’t understand it, those people who make decisions will, and do very well understand it. Putin has faced down the International Monetary Fund, which by the way is located in Washington, DC, and is in fact Washington itself. So in the sense of a Cold War, you have Washington vs Moscow, and Moscow won this round.”
Sinclair also added: “There is no question now that there is a paradigm shift in gold toward the physical market. A paradigm shift in the longevity of the paper futures markets, which as I said before will now move towards a physical market. The West will end up losing control of the ability to manipulate the gold market much sooner as a result of this debacle in Cyprus.
I remember back in the 1970s there was the assumption that the bullion banks were geniuses, and that under no circumstances did they ever make a mistake in anything they participated in. That was absolutely false then as much as it is now.
Back in 1979 when the gold price broke over $400 for the second time, I had been under pressure because I was the buyer the first time gold broke over $400, and subsequently down gold went. Well, in came the Middle-East to the gold market.
The minute I saw the Middle-East come in to the gold market I bought back every gold contract I had sold to protect myself and then doubled my position which literally sent the gold banks into total and absolute retreat. They had been overrun. Gold then moved from that roughly $400 area in late 1979 to $887.50 at the beginning of 1980, gaining the most over the shortest period of time in the entire 1970s bull market.
Right now we have had a significant change in the world financial landscape and paradigm. The fact that Russia has faced down the IMF is not any different from the day I faced down the gold banks in late 1979. What I believe this means for gold is that its slavery to the Fed is over and it’s on its way to freedom from US manipulation.
The important point here, besides the fact that what we have just witnessed is a clear and decisive Russian victory and an IMF defeat, what is absolutely crucial is for investors to understand that a wrong decision by the IMF here could create runs on banks throughout the entire Western world that make the likes of what we have seen previously in Greece and Spain look likes child’s play.
What I am saying is that another major mistake here by the IMF could destabilize the entire Western financial world in such a way that it simply could not recover without unprecedented turmoil and destruction. The bottom line here is Lagarde took on Putin, but Putin has checkmated both her and the IMF the same way a Russian grandmaster chess player would destroy his opponent.”
Sinclair also predicted: “Cyprus cannot, will not, absolutely must not leave the euro. They know that quite well. So the break of the euro market down into the 1.28 area must have sent shock waves through decision-makers in euro land. Cyprus must be rescued because they cannot be allowed to leave the euro. In the end, however, all of this will create a demand for other alternative ways of being able to support the value of money, and gold will benefit enormously from it.”
-
RUSSIA SENDING WARSHIP FLEET TO MEDITERRANEAN: RUSSIAN NAVAL BASE IN CYPRUS COMING NEXT?
Zero Hedge
March 18, 2013
That Russia has previously threatened, and followed through with, sending ships to the Mediterranean is nothing new. In the past, every such episode was related to the protection of what Putin considered vital geopolitical interests in the region: whether defending the Syrian port of Tartus, various crude and natural gas pipelines in the region threatened by NATO expansion in Turkey, or offsetting heightened US presence around Gaza and Israel (and of course Iran). Which is why with the legacy conflicts in the region dormant, and the only news of any relevance being the European intervention in Cyprus against Russian oligarch interests, it is surprising we learn today that the Russian Navy will dispatch a permanent fleet of five or six combat ships to the Mediterranean Sea, with frigates and cruisers making up the core of the fleet.
How far into the Mediterranean one wonders? It wouldn’t be too difficult to put two and two together and assume that with Cyprus just a few hundreds kilometers away from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Israel, Russia may have not only a new geopolitical target, namely the now pseudo-insolvent Russian protectorate of Cyprus, but a perfect alibi to be in the region as well, and more importantly, have a Plan B to the Syrian port of Tartus which is Russia’s only naval base in the region.
How soon until we read that Russia is willing to invest even more unguaranteed loans into the Cypriot financial system…. in exchange for one tiny little naval and/or military base?
“Up to five or six ships must be on a permanent basis in the Mediterranean Sea. They should be controlled through the command of the Black Sea Fleet,” Russian TV channel Zvezda quoted Admiral Chirkov as saying.
Supply vessels will also be included in the permanent deployment to the Mediterranean.
The decision to send Russian ships to the Mediterranean’s waters was first announced on March 11 by Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.
“I think that we have everything to create and maintain such a grouping. Certainly, this shows the positive dynamics of development of the Navy,” Shoigu told top officers of the Russian Armed Forces. By 2020, the Russian Navy will include eight missile submarines, 16 multipurpose subs and 54 combat ships, he added.
Chirkov said that top Navy officers are currently in the process of strategizing the deployment of a combat group to the Mediterranean. He also said that Russia is prepared to send combat ships to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
“There was an experience in the history of the Navy when we had squadrons in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Of course, if needed, we will [advise] the Defense Ministry’s top officials, the government and the President [on the deployment of] task forces on a permanent basis there,” Chirkov explained.
And an example of the kind of ship that will soon be floating in Cyprus’ back yard:
-
RUSSIAN NAVY STARTS FORMING MEDITERRANEAN TASK FORCE
-
MOSCOW, March 11 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy has begun setting up a permanent task force to defend Russia’s interests in the Mediterranean, Navy Commander Adm. Viktor Chirkov said Monday.
“The defense minister has ordered us to form a task force that will operate in the Mediterranean Sea on a permanent basis,” Chirkov told reporters after a defense ministry meeting. “We have already started work on this task.”
The move comes at a time of increased international tension in the eastern Mediterranean due to the worsening civil war in Syria.
According to Chirkov, the issue has been discussed at the Navy’s Main Headquarters, with the focus on logistics and training of commanding personnel.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said earlier on Monday that a decision to deploy a permanent naval task force in the Mediterranean had been made.
“I believe that we have the capability to form and maintain such a task force,” Shoigu said, citing the success of recent large-scale naval drills carried out by the Russian navy in the Mediterranean and Black seas.
The exercises involved warships from the Northern, Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific fleets, strategic bombers and naval infantry.
Neither Shoigu nor Chirkov mentioned a timeline for the deployment of the new task force, which would likely require significant effort to ensure efficient logistics and the proper maintenance of warships in the Mediterranean group.
Shoigu admitted Monday that the general state of affairs in the navy “could not be called satisfactory,” particularly in terms of poor servicing and maintenance of vessels.
“A significant part of the fleet has to be operated with extended periods [of time] between repairs, while many ships and vessels have armaments and military equipment that can be used only with restrictions,” Shoigu said.
A high-ranking defense ministry source told RIA Novosti in the beginning of March that a proposed Russian permanent naval task force in the Mediterranean Sea could consist of up to 10 combat and auxiliary ships from three of the existing fleets.
The task force may operate on a rotating basis and use ports in Cyprus, Montenegro, Greece and Syria as resupply points, the official added.
The Soviet Union maintained its 5th Mediterranean Squadron in that sea from 1967 until 1992. It was formed to counter the US Navy 6th Fleet during the Cold War, and consisted of 30-50 warships and auxiliary vessels at different times.
-
RUSSIA STAFFS MEDITERRANEAN FLEET
DEBKAfile Special Report
MAY 12, 2013
Russian Navy Admiral Viktor Chirkov said Sunday, May 12, that the process is underway for creating a permanent staff to run Russian fleet operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Speaking at Sevastopol, the Black Sea fleet’s home port, Adm. Chirkov said a staff of 20 officers was already in place. And the Mediterranean deployment would comprise five to six warships and their service vessels as well possibly as nuclear submarines which, say our military sources, are armed with nuclear ballistic missiles.
debkafile’s military sources: The new permanent deployment is the next Russian step for safeguarding Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus and deterring military attacks on his Hizballah allies and Iranian interests in their three-way bloc.
Moscow is also announcing loud and clear that Russia is finally restoring its military presence to the Middle East in 2013 after the last Soviet squadron exited the Mediterranean in 1992.
The Russian naval step came 24 hours after two car bombs reduced to rubble the center of the Turkish town of Reyhanli near the Syrian border, killing 46 people and injuring scores. Turkish ministers at the scene Sunday openly blamed Syrian military intelligence for the attack’s planning and execution.
This raised concerns in Moscow that Ankara was preparing to deliver a serious reprisal, possibly in the form of an aerial or missile assault, on Syrian military targets.
Russian tacticians reckoned that, after Israel’s two air strikes against Assad regime targets, the Tayyip Erdogan’s government could hardly avoid direct action without appearing to be failing in courage in the eyes of the Turkish public.
Some action is doubly pressing as Prime Minister Erdogan prepares to travel to Washington to meet President Barack Obama on May 16 and present him with evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons in his war on Syrian rebels.
The Reyhanli bombings and Turkey’s potential retaliation sent a fresh wave of alarm across the Syrian neighborhood. Once again, Israeli Air Force warplanes thundered Sunday across South Lebanon and over Hizballah strongholds in the eastern Beqaa Valley near the Syrian border.
Given all these circumstances, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s chances are virtually nil of getting anywhere in his trip to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to persuade President Vladimir Putin to hold back advanced S-300 anti-air missiles from Syria. He can expect to find the Russian president driving full speed for arms deals – not just with Syria, but also with Iraq, Yemen and Sudan.
Putin clearly regards Obama’s decision to keep the US clear of military involvement in the Syrian conflict as an open gateway for a Russian military comeback to the Middle East after a 21-year absence, armed with a cornucopia of weapons for winning clients. For now, there is no stopping him, not even if Turkey or Israel were to embark themselves on military intervention.
-
RUSSIAN NAVY’S PERMANENT MEDITERRANEAN TASK FORCE TO INCLUDE NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
Russia’s Mediterranean task force will comprise 5-6 warships and may be enlarged to include nuclear submarines, Navy Commander Adm. Viktor Chirkov said on Sunday.
“Overall, already from this year, we plan to have 5-6 warships and support vessels [in the Mediterranean Sea], which will be replaced on a rotating basis from each of the fleets – the Black Sea, Baltic, Northern and, in some cases, even the Pacific Fleet. Depending on the scope of assignments and their complexity, the number of warships in the task force may be increased,” Chirkov told RIA Novosti.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu earlier said a decision to deploy a permanent task force in the Mediterranean to defend Russia’s interests in the area had been made.
The Russian navy commander also said nuclear submarines could be deployed in the Mediterranean, if necessary.
“Possibly. In a perspective. They [submarines] were present there during the existence of the 5th squadron. There were both nuclear and diesel submarines there. Everything will depend on the situation,” he said.
The Soviet Union maintained its 5th Mediterranean Squadron in that sea from 1967 until 1992. It was formed to counter the US Navy 6th Fleet during the Cold War, and consisted of 30-50 warships and auxiliary vessels at different times.
Russia also plans to use its Mediterranean task force for missions in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, the country’s Navy chief said.
“No doubt, if necessary, when some tasks arise in other nearby regions, in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, the task force may be used,” Chirkov said.
-
-
History of the Russian submarine fleet
Now the Russian Navy is training officers who will perform their duties at sea on a permanent basis, he said.
“These persons must be comprehensively trained to solve tasks not only in the Mediterranean but also in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans,” he said.
The headquarters of Russia’s Mediterranean taskforce will be set up already in the summer of 2013, he said.
“The headquarters will be established in the summer of this year and its officers will stay aboard one of the flagships in the Mediterranean Sea,” he said.
-
RUSSIAN MED FLEET RETURNS – AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE
-
By Jim W. Dean | PressTV
The first big part of the news is the active word ‘permanent.’ Corporate media decided to ignore the strategic shift consequences of that, and the West may be looking back soon at the wisdom their aggressive regime change military moves, despite the extensive use of proxies.
The recent Israeli attacks on Syria, particularly the use of a nuclear bunker buster gave the Russians a gift from heaven, opening the door to make a defensive deployment to protect their longtime ally in Syria. The Russians are back in the Med to stay, and this might be a good lesson to the folly of the Western slow motion aggression policy in the region, which has put a match to the whole place.
Russian Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov has announced that a permanent staff was being set up, and the present force might eventually include their nuclear submarines. In speaking to RIA:
“Overall, already from this year, we plan to have five or six warships and support vessels [in the Mediterranean Sea], which will be replaced on a rotating basis from each of the fleets – the Black Sea, Baltic, Northern and, in some cases, even the Pacific Fleet. Depending on the scope of assignments and their complexity, the number of warships in the task force may be increased.”
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu let the cat out of the bag when he stated that a permanent naval task force was needed to defend Russian interests in the region. The world has watched for two years now how coolly Russia has dealt with the continuing escalations in the fighting there, supported by a growing number of outside states who have effectively declared war on Syria thinking that such was a no-risk deal.
Here is what corporate media has not been telling you all. The preemptive strike doctrine of the Israelis and Neocons is going to be challenged. Netanyahu can talk all he wants to about red lines which will trigger a preemptive ‘defensive’ strike, but yours truly has written in these columns that eventually the intended targets would adopt that policy themselves. They have actually been given permission to by the dummies who invented it.
US Navy sources can sneer at the ‘old’ Russian ships all they want to, but there is nothing old about what they will be carrying, a game changer… their state-of-the-art missiles which they made a top priority in their defense policy as the new missiles are revolutionizing the next generation of warfare. The will sweep the skies of planes and the seas of ships. Air forces are working now to deploy robotic war plane drones that are basically missiles themselves by matching their speeds and aerodynamics.
Part of the corporate media hoax has been the fraudulent story of the S-300s being ‘introduced’ to the region as being destabilizing. Anyone wanting to check a copy of Jane’s in 1996 will find them already in Syria. Maybe some definition game has been going on that if they were under Russian physical control, as American munitions are in many foreign bases, they are not officially Syrian. But I would ask the lazy media what they thought brought down the Turkish F-16 provocations, a waste of those unfortunate pilots in peace time.
Yes folks, the S-300’s have been there all this time, and not fired at Israel yet. But that is all going to change. Israel’s days of roaming freely over Lebanon airspace and their ability to launch air flight munitions without entering Syrian territory may be over, or it will be when the Russians decide to.
Their fleet, even its older ships will be carrying their state-of-the-art weapons like the S-400’s where a pilot only has two or three seconds to live once the ‘beep beep’ that they are locked onto at tremendous speeds. The Russian ships on patrol will be able to shoot any attacking Israeli planes down, including those returning to base post attack. They can even be shot down while taking off.
Any retaliatory strike by Israel would trigger a full response by the Russians that could include their bases and command structure. Their updated Iskander missiles are stated to have speeds in the Mach 6 to 7 range but our sources say over Mach 8. To evade anti-missile fire they can pull 30+ g turns and make a 90-degree dive onto a target while doing so. The Israeli bullies have never had to stand up to a modern military but they may get the chance. They won’t like it.
The beauty in all of this is the scenario described above could all be done in a purely defensive mode while resisting an Israeli attack. After one incident alone the Russians might tell the Israelis that any Israeli warplane leaving Israeli air space would be considered an attack and both the plane and the base it flew from subject to attack.
Oh… I forgot to mention above that the targeting can be done either by satellite or programmed into the missiles so jamming would not be effective. This is not the Gaza Strip mortar shells on a back yard rocket tube, which Israel claims to be such a mortal threat where they have repeatedly launched civilian punishment retaliations as ‘deterrents.’ The dummy Israelis did not realize that they were giving moral permission for the same thing to be done to them someday.
Veterans Today has reported that the US Army Corps of Engineers has been spending huge amounts of money building the Israelis nuclear strike proof command centers. More American taxpayer money was wasted to protect Israel, which has a huge weapons-of-mass-destruction inventory threatening everyone else. Under the Bush/NeoCon preemptive strike policy the Russians could have taken these out of ‘potential’ threats, and similarly the Patriot missile batteries.
As for accuracy, the Iskanders can take the Patriot missile batteries out the first day. And the Russians could surrender to the international court the next day on the grounds that their response was totally legal under international law. And if that did not suffice, their second defense would be the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike for defensive purposes… not to eliminate a future threat, but one that had already signaled its hostile intent.
If any of you are thinking I am hyping this scenario, I held up publishing this until I got confirmation from the Israelis. The headline of the Israel Hayom for May 19th was:
“Expect Israeli strikes on Russian arms shipments to Syria-Hezbollah… US officials tell the Wall Street Journal another round of Israeli airstrikes could target a new Russian transfer of Yakhont advanced anti-ship missiles in the near future.”
This was nothing more than laying the ground work for the IDF to continue aggressive strikes in support of the Syrian rebels. Note the automatic linking of Syria and Hezbollah like they share arms depots or the Russians let them give their arms away to others. Do the Israelis have US permission? Well, kind of. Obama said Israel has the right to defend itself, so that means others have the right, also. But the game is a bit different when someone is in the Med who has full retaliatory ability including nuclear weapons.
Oh, I forgot to mention something about the nuclear bunker buster that the Israelis used in Damascus. The Russians of course have them also, to use on their newer missiles to keep their weight down for higher speed or longer range, and to make sure one missile does the job. Despite Bibi’s claiming that Israel is ready for all eventualities, it is ready for none of this. And if the Russians responded to an Israeli attack, believe me the US would not intercede.
The US would be in enough trouble for having put the region in such danger by arming Israel to the teeth to a level its own population could never have afforded, nor would they if they could have.
When Israel suffers a substantial retaliatory strike after an aggressive attack on their part, I can promise you the average Israeli is going to have an instant different opinion of the bully buzz they have grown used to when attacking weak or defenseless opponents.
In the long run more than a few international civilian and military Intel entities have long suspected that this is what eventually would have to happen to remove Israel as a threat to everybody. They would attack the wrong people at the wrong time.
Nobody in the American military is going to willingly die for bully Israel other than maybe the Christian Zios in the Air Force. But that said, the world would be a safer place with them gone anyway.
-
FABIAN CALVO: THE CYPRUS BANKING CRISIS AND THE ELITE’S COLLAPSE PLAN
-
EUROPEAN UNION IMPOSES BANK BAILOUT ON CYPRUS, PENDING CONFLICTS WITH MOSCOW
The Cypriot government and the European Union (EU) arrived at an agreement early yesterday morning to secure a bailout of Cypriot banks and avert state bankruptcy in Cyprus.
The terms set by the bailout amount to the economic devastation of the island country in the interests of Europe’s financial elite. Cyprus’s financial sector, accounting for around half of economic output, will immediately be reduced by up to half. Laiki bank, the second largest, is to be wound up with its debts to the ECB taken on by the Bank of Cyprus. Further losses are inevitable, as banking done in Cyprus is shifted to other euro zone countries’ banks.
The dictates of the EU and the criminal financial practices of Cyprus’s ruling elite alike have paved the way for massive attacks on working people. With unemployment at more than 14 percent, there will inevitably be thousands of job losses in banking, Cyprus’s main employer, and from restructured companies and privatised services.
The bailout, which is massively opposed by the Cypriot population, is to be imposed without a vote in the Cypriot parliament. To this end, the original proposal to impose a levy on bank deposits, which had been rejected by the Cypriot parliament, was removed from the final agreement. The new plan provides for the freezing of all deposits over €100,000 to cover the bailout. Depositors and shareholders in Laiki will see their assets transferred to a “bad bank” and could lose everything.
These measures, together with a privatisation programme and tax increases, are projected to raise the €7 billion Cyprus has been ask to contribute to the €17 billion bailout from the EU, ECB and International Monetary Fund.
Ahead of the final round of discussions on Sunday, EU officials insisted on installing an economic dictatorship over the Cypriot economy. The measures included controls to prevent large-scale capital flight, restrictions on the use of bank accounts, and the imposition of limits on the amount of money withdrawn from ATM machines. Anti-democratic regulations passed by the parliament in a late-night sitting on Friday also included the provision for the Central Bank to adopt any steps “for reasons of public order or safety.”
The main demand was the winding up of Laiki bank. In addition, German and IMF officials demanded the adoption of a higher levy on large, mainly Russian, depositors—with Cyprus reportedly told to adopt this proposal or leave the currency union. Reports circulated late on Sunday evening that President Nicos Anastasiades, confronted with the intransigence of EU demands, had offered to resign.
Early reports following the deal struck with the “troika”—the EU, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund—gave mixed messages.
The measure targeting investors that have deposited over €100,000 was palatable to the European bourgeoisie, as it would primarily hit medium-size depositors unable to shift their assets overseas and would force the weakening of Russian influence over the island.
The Financial Times reported on bankers in other tax havens, such as Andorra, courting Russian businessmen seeking to quit Cyprus.
While the immediate target of the bailout was Cyprus, the ruling elite is clearly sending a message that no other country facing a financial crisis would be allowed to remain a euro zone member without submitting to the demands of the troika.
When Euro Group head Jeroen Dijsselbloem proclaimed a levy on depositors in a bank bailout for Cyprus a model for the rest of the euro zone, the continent’s markets began to fall. This comes as banking systems across the euro zone—including in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and Greece—are on the verge of bankruptcy and kept afloat by emergency bailouts.
Dijsselbloem’s comments raised the question: would depositors in these countries’ banks also be pillaged to pay for criminal banking practices in these countries?
Dijsselbloem indicated they would be. “If there is a risk in a bank, our first question should be ‘Okay, what are you in the bank going to do about that? What can you do to recapitalise yourself?’” he said.
“If the bank can’t do it, then we’ll talk to the shareholders and the bondholders, we’ll ask them to contribute in recapitalising the bank, and if necessary the uninsured deposit holders.”
“The consequences may be that it’s the end of story, and that is an approach that I think, now that we are out of the heat of the crisis, we should take,” he warned.
This amounts to a license for the European financial aristocracy to freely loot the deposits of workers and small savers. It also sets the stage for bitter struggles inside the European bourgeoisie over whose deposits will be raided.
Wolfgang Münchau entitled his comment in the Financial Times, “Euro zone break-up edges ever closer.”
The market reaction, with falls of around 2.5 percent in Spain and Italy, underscores how precarious the economic situation in Europe has become—especially given that the ostensible trigger of the falls was Cyprus, whose economy is miniscule as a proportion of that of the European Union.
With reports that the Spanish government is set to impose heavy losses on investors in five nationalised banks, with shareholders of Bankia nearly wiped out and others facing 60 percent losses, the euro and European shares both fell. Several Italian banks were suspended after falling more than 5 percent.
Speculation grew over whether the Kremlin could adopt retaliatory measures against European firms. A former Kremlin adviser, Alexander Nekrassov, commented, “Then, of course, Moscow will be looking for ways to punish the EU. There are a number of large German companies operating in Russia.”
“In my view, the stealing of what has already been stolen continues,” declared Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Russian President Vladimir Putin nevertheless ordered his government to negotiate the restructuring of a bailout loan it granted to Cyprus in 2011 in an attempt to maintain influence over the island.
Two geo-strategic issues are at stake in this conflict.
As yet unverified supplies of gas off the coast of Cyprus are only likely to be extracted by 2018-19 at the earliest. But conflict over access to them is a major consideration. The bailout of Cyprus by the troika will be used as a mechanism to strengthen the control of European and US firms over these resources, and potentially create an alternative supply of gas for the European market to that controlled by Russia.
This strategy is not only dangerous because of the conflicts it will provoke with Moscow, but because the gas deposits are in disputed waters also claimed by Turkey. Ankara has threatened that any exploitation of energy reserves in “Turkish” waters would be deemed an act of war.
Secondly, there is a political imperative to deny Russia access to the Cypriot port of Limassol as a naval base. With Russia presently reliant upon a base at Tartus in Syria to access the Mediterranean, US-led moves to depose the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and then target Iran in order to establish undisputed hegemony over the Middle East’s oil riches require the exclusion of any counter-offensive by Moscow.
-
HAVE THE RUSSIANS ALREADY QUIETLY WITHDRAWN ALL THEIR CASH FROM CYPRUS?
Zero Hedge
March 26, 2013
Yesterday, we first reported on something very disturbing (at least to Cyprus’ citizens): despite the closed banks (which will mostly reopen tomorrow, while the two biggest soon to be liquidatedbanks Laiki and BoC will be shuttered until Thursday) and the capital controls, the local financial system has been leaking cash. Lots and lots of cash.
Alas, we did not have much granularity or details on who or where these illegal transfers were conducted with. Today, courtesy of a follow up by Reuters, we do.
The result, at least for Europe, is quite scary because let’s recall that the primary political purpose of destroying the Cyprus financial system was simply to punish and humiliate Russian billionaire oligarchs who held tens of billions in “unsecured” deposits with the island nation’s two biggest banks.
As it turns out, these same oligrachs may have used the one week hiatus period of total chaos in the banking system to transfer the bulk of the cash they had deposited with one of the two main Cypriot banks, in the process making the whole punitive point of collapsing the Cyprus financial system entirely moot.
From Reuters:
While ordinary Cypriots queued at ATM machines to withdraw a few hundred euros as credit card transactions stopped, other depositors used an array of techniques to access their money.
No one knows exactly how much money has left Cyprus’ banks, or where it has gone. The two banks at the centre of the crisis – Cyprus Popular Bank, also known as Laiki, and Bank of Cyprus – have units in London which remained open throughout the week and placed no limits on withdrawals. Bank of Cyprus also owns 80 percent of Russia’s Uniastrum Bank, which put no restrictions on withdrawals in Russia.Russians were among Cypriot banks’ largest depositors.
So while one could not withdraw from Bank of Cyprus or Laiki, one could withdraw without limitations from subsidiary and OpCo banks, and other affiliates?
Just brilliant.
And if there was any doubt that the entire process of destroying one entire nation was simply to punish Cyprus, it can be completely cleared away now:
ECB officials contacted Latvia, another EU country that has received large Russian deposits, to warn authorities against taking in Russian money fleeing Cyprus, two sources familiar with the contacts said.
“It was made clear to our Latvian friends that if they want to join the euro, they should not provide a haven for Russian money exiting Cyprus,” a euro zone central banker said.
If one thinks there is any material Russian cash therefore left in Cyprus with this epic loophole in place, we urge them to make a deposit in the insolvent nation. One person who certainly will not be allocating any of his money into Bank of Cyprus is German FinMin Schaeuble:
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said the bank closure had limited capital flight but that the ECB was looking closely at the issue. He declined to provide figures.
Perhaps because if he did, it would become clear that the only entities truly punished by this weekend’s actions are not evil Russian billionaires, but small and medium domestic companies, and other moderately wealthy individuals, hardly any of them from the former “Evil Empire.”
Companies that had to meet margin calls to avoid defaulting on deals were granted funds. Transfers for trade in humanitarian products, medicines and jet fuel were allowed.
The stealth withdrawals by Russians of course means that the two megabanks are now utterly drained of capital, and that the haircuts on those who still have unsecured deposits with the two banks will be so big it will likely mean a complete wipeout of all deposits. As in 0% recovery on your deposits!
In other words, by now any big Russian funds in Cyprus are long gone, and the only damage accrues to the locals: for one reason because their money over the critical EUR100K threshold has been “vaporized”, and for another because the marginal driving force and loan demand creator in Cyprus, the Russians, are gone and are never coming back again.
This is what passes for monetary real-politik in the New Normal – an entire nation becomes collateral when pursuing a wealthy group of people. And the “wealthy group” is victorious in the end despite everything…
If we were Cypriots at this point we would be angry. Very, very angry.
-
RUSSIA TO BAN CASH TRANSACTIONS OVER $10,000
The government plans to slash the amount of cash in domestic trade.
Russia may ban cash payments for purchases of more than 300,000 rubles (around $10,000) starting in 2015. The move is expected to boost banks’ cash reserves and put a damper on Russia’s shadow economy. However, the middle class will most likely end up having to pay the price for the scheme.
Moscow is looking to kill two birds with one stone: Firstly, it wants to bring some of the population’s “grey” income out of the shadow; secondly, it wants to increase the volume of cash reserves in the banks. The government’s bill will introduce the new rule to the State Duma. The document was prepared by the Ministry of Finance and approved by the government.
The restrictions on cash transactions will develop in two phases. In 2014, a ban on cash payments for purchases worth more than 600,000 rubles (about $19,500) will be introduced; the limit will then be halved to 300,000 rubles in 2015. Furthermore, the document introduces mandatory, cash-free, salary payments.
Smaller companies with fewer than 35 employees will be the only exception, and trade companies will be able to pay salaries in cash if they employ no more than 20 people on staff.
Plastic cards appeared in Russia back in 1969, in the form of Diners Club cards that were only accepted in special shops servicing foreigners and Soviet citizens who had returned from abroad with foreign currency. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of market reforms, Russia attempted to create its first corporate card systems (STB-card and Union-card).
However, these were only used by the wealthiest Russians, and all of these systems were smothered by the 1998 meltdown. By that time, there was no point for the middle-class and lower-income households to acquire cards, because shops were unwilling to install terminals. Meanwhile, one of the capital’s retail giants — the French chain Auchan — only accepted its own cards for a long time, while refusing those of any other issuers.
Even now, cash withdrawals on payday account for around 85 percent of all ATM transactions. Moreover, in 2005–2011, cash flows more than quadrupled. According to Bank of Russia estimates, more than 90 percent of all commodity purchases in Russia are paid for in cash.
The government is now trying to bring the shadow economy into the light and increase money flows into the treasury, according to Investcafe analyst Yekaterina Kondrashova. In her words, as soon as the new rules come into effect, those using unofficial wage payment schemes will encounter certain difficulties, although there could be some ways to circumvent the law.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the National Anticorruption Committee estimate the market for money laundering and cash conversions at somewhere between 3.5 and 7 trillion rubles ($113–230 billion) — about 60 percent of the Russian federal budget.
Rosstat reports that the volume of the shadow economy (“grey” money from tax evasion, compensations paid as “cash in envelopes” and violations of currency and foreign trade regulations) is at least 15 percent of the GDP, according to Ricom-Trust senior analyst Vladislav Zhukovsky.
Given the substantial criminal activity and illegal entrepreneurship, the grey and black economies account for 50–65 percent of GDP. Even former Central Bank Chief Sergey Ignatyev had to admit that about $50 billion was taken out of Russia illegally in 2012 alone.
There is another side to the move toward plastic, however. Cash-free payments will result in higher prices for some goods and services. The middle class will suffer the most, because the “risk group” includes property and automobile transactions. The luxury segment will also be affected, including customized tours.
The problem is that Russian banks charge commissions ranging from 2–4 percent of the total amount of cash-free transfers. Sberbank charges up to 2 percent, says Irina Tyurina, spokesperson for the Russian Union of Travel Agencies.
Svetlana Kostromina at Volkswagen dealer AVILON is certain that the switch to cash-free payments will affect sales of passenger cars, because their servicing bank charges 1.8 percent for money transfers. There is a reason why only one or two of the 300 cars they sell every month are paid for by bank transfer.
Bank commissions on property transactions can be huge, so buyers of property in the pre-owned market will essentially have to pay twice the agent’s commission.
When it comes to travel agencies, Tyurina assumes that they will easily skirt the ban by breaking down the costs of customized tour into several deals — each one of them within the limit set by the Ministry of Finance.
-
CYPRUS POISONS TRUST IN BANKING
By Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief
The ongoing story about Cyprus’ intent to raid all savings accounts in this tiny republic is really about a heist mandated by the EU bailout commission—and that’s because the shady bank economy in this island tax haven is around eight times the size of the real economy there. The EU decided to force Cyprus to raid bank deposits, the only ready source of funds. The announcement came on a Saturday when banks were closed but news of the “tax” caused a firestorm of protest and thousands ran to the ATMs and tried to empty as much of their accounts as possible.
None of the banks have been allowed to open until a decision is made. Meanwhile local businesses are struggling to make ends meet with credit cards. When the banks ever do open they will be hard pressed to convince anyone to keep their money there. Most of the big money in Cyprus belongs to the Russian Oligarchs and Mafia, who aren’t ones to take this lying down, but this move by the EU has poisoned the trust in banks all over Europe creating instability for most Western economies. EU and Russian stock prices and currencies are all in decline with the Russian decline particularly steep.
Even US and British citizens are nervously watching this situation and bankers are very worried that this kind of scare could infuse distrust among all banks in the West—since the debt crisis is widespread. The government promised to open banks on Thursday, but then demurred, postponing any opening until next Tuesday, hoping the weekend and Monday holiday will allow time for EU and Cypriot officials to come to some less draconian solution that won’t set off another wave of withdrawals.
Good luck with that! Public confidence in the security and sanctity of bank deposits is gone, and only a daily withdrawal limit is going to slow the inevitable run on banks when they do finally reopen. Withdrawal limits will surely remain in place until confidence can be restored—which may take months.
In the meantime, all Cypriot banks are required to keep at least one ATM open for cash withdrawals so that people have something to survive on. Lines are long and constant as people queue up to withdraw at most 260 Euros ($340) per day. But businesses and companies have zero access to their accounts and that spells trouble soon. Many small businesses are resorting to personal credit cards and checks to keep business alive, but if this continues much longer, even those forms of credit may not be acceptable to others.
As for the big Russian depositors, they are really over a barrel. As Cyprus’ reputation for banking privacy and favorable tax laws grew in past decades, so did their deposits—especially by “former” Russian Communist leaders who were on the receiving end of the phony privatization of key industries after the so-called fall of the Soviet Union. The US was also sending the Russian elite weekly suitcases of $100 bills which ended up in Swiss and Cypriot banks—not to mention all over Europe in the form of lavish spending.
Trouble is, there wasn’t enough of an economy in Cyprus to provide the banks with suitable investment vehicles to absorb these deposits, so they started lending the money to Greece buying high interest-bearing sovereign bonds. When Greece could no longer pay the interest or redeem their bonds, the EU sovereign debt crisis began in earnest and bailouts began—but stakeholders like Cypriot banks had to take a 50 percent haircut along with others in the bailout process. So, that’s why Cypriot banks themselves are now insolvent and need a bailout.
In short, the money is not coming back on its own. It’s all been a big Ponzi scheme. The Russians’ money is mostly gone, and everyone is looking for an EU bailout to make them whole again. No market economic solution is possible with most EU countries drowning in red ink—the inevitable legacy of social welfare states which promise more benefits than the semi-free markets can sustain.
Only Germany, Switzerland and Norway are in positive economic territory in Europe, and their people are in no mood to bail out the rest of Europe—though their globalist politicians are, and that is why they keep supporting bailouts. But there are limits to German patience. German chancellor Angela Merkel is under pressure to require the EU southern tier problem countries like Greece, Italy, Spain and Cyprus to tax and cut spending as their part of the bailout deal.
Correct as that position is, there is no way to grab savings accounts or enforce strong austerity measures that won’t cause a firestorm of protest. Sadly, with the power to vote out politicians who cut benefits, democratic socialism can never be made to be fiscally responsible, so deficit spending, borrowing, and eventual bankruptcy and are always the inexorable result.
That doesn’t mean, however, that collapse is imminent. They can keep creating money and bailouts for a lot longer than people think, as long as they keep inflation moderate. Remember, there is a globalist control agenda behind all of this, and they won’t give up easily.
The one time savings tax (9.9%) was a particularly unwise move as it has the air of theft about it and also unfairly penalizes the smaller account holders who aren’t part of the bigger Russian money-laundering system. They precipitated the bank run. This savings grab was so roundly decried by the Cypriots that the government backtracked immediately and is desperately searching for softer solutions, but that’s not going to be easy either.
This week, a conciliatory proposal was floated to cut the tax to about 6.75% for the small guys with total deposits less than $130,000 and raise the tax on the wealthy to 15%. That, however, was still too high for regular people and unacceptable to the Russians who have the muscle to apply a lot of external pressure.
The move to load up the big boys with more tax pain simultaneously set in motion some heavy intervention by Russian PM Vladimir Putin who was forced to consider another bridge loan to postpone the crisis. They’ve already loaned Cyprus $2.5B and are said to be considering lowering the interest rate and extending the maturity of that loan—but only if the EU starts including the Russians in the bailout talks. Russia and China are always looking for a place at the table and won’t hesitate to use their financial strength to open the way for influence.
But even Putin can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip, so there has got to be something for the Russians in return for more money or credit. I think we’ll see that the Russians may be shooting for a controlling interest in new gas fields discovered in Cypriot waters. As Armstrong Economics wrote this week:
Cyprus expects about 200 billion cubic meters of natural gas worth some $80 billion at current prices which is in Cypriot waters. That amount of gas would be enough to cover around 40% of the European Union’s annual gas consumption. Cyprus has been counting on starting to export by 2018, however, this may be optimistic in the long-run.
If those gas fields come online, Cyprus could hold the key to breaking the stranglehold Russia has on Europe, so it will be very important for the EU not to allow Russia a controlling interest in Cypriot gas.
Meanwhile, there’s a lot of pressure on the EU bailout commission to come up with a less politically explosive way to bailout the Cypriot banks. The “Eurogroup” of finance ministers has been in emergency meetings all this week trying to calm fears and offer more flexibility over the bank tax. However, they are still insisting that Cyprus raise 5.8 billion Euros from the tax.
And, that “program” means extracting more taxes—and Cyprus really has no good choices. $5B is a lot of money to extract from this small economy. The only plums available for the picking are the wealthy bank depositors.
New Cypriot Bonds may be the only way to postpone this crisis without taxes, but that just kicks the can down the road and is not a true solution. The big question is: Who will buy Cypriot bonds given the current risk of default? To make bonds work, the government is going to either have to offer up some guarantees based on future gas field income, or the EU powers that be (PTB) are going to have to create some new derivative insurance to back these bonds. Few have ever collected on derivative insurance, so it has all the makings of a Ponzi scheme as well.
The EU leadership is desperately looking for a way to postpone the crisis and this may be the least painful way out without ejecting Cyprus from the EU. At least one major EU official indicated that Cyprus may be a sufficiently small player in the EU agenda to allow it to leave:
A senior EU official made clear to Reuters that the bloc was ready to see the bankrupt island banished from the euro in the belief it could then contain damage to the wider European economy.
That would be a first, and I’m not sure the globalists want to risk even one defection for fear that Greece and others might follow. Other EU economists continue to insist that Cyprus is a special case and the contagion of taxing bank accounts is unlikely to spread. I think that is true for the short term. But, I think they are hoping to at least get their tax foot in the door, so you may see them reduce the tax to a level they can get away with—just to get people used to the idea, and then expand it later.
Others can clearly see that the whole southern tier of EU countries will someday be in the same boat as Cyprus. Will they, too, turn on deposit holdings? I think so, but only have this crisis softens—and not only bank deposits but pension plans as well.
Governments are hungry for new revenue. Part of the reason why banking and finance is the target is because this is the core of the speculative economy where the wealthy and the elite keep their money churning for profit. Everyone, including those looking to fund the UN or the NWO, are eager to start taxing monetary transactions, which has a chilling effect on legitimate investment. The tax may be “only” 1% but that tax gets collected every time you move your funds to buy and sell, making the tax much more aggressive. The government is going to collect that tax many times over for the same money if it moves often enough.
I’ve seen at least one of the many “imminent threat of banking collapse” purveyors claim that everyone ought to get their money out of the banks before they do it here. I disagree. It’s almost impossible to run a business on cash and it triggers a lot of IRS reports when you run a lot of cash in and out of your accounts. I don’t think taxing bank deposits here in the States is imminent at all, so don’t rush to withdraw all your money. The only other safe way to store value is in precious metals, but that’s a real hassle to turn back into liquid cash for paying bills.
All of this does, however, send a strong warning to Americans who have taken a lot of money offshore or to Europe, thinking that it will be safe from the greed of the US government. That may be true for the short term, but I can guarantee that anyone who has large sums of money overseas will someday lose access to it by the same kind of bank edict we are seeing in Cyprus.
-
SPECIAL REPORT: RUSSIAN TROOPS TO TRAIN WITH U.S. MILITARY IN COLORADO TO TARGET TERRORISTS IN AMERICA
Russian Special Forces are training with U.S. forces in Colorado starting May 2012. The reason: to counter terrorists here in the U.S. That’s a little frightening when you consider so many experts say the U.S. is on shaky ground financially. What are they preparing for–a financial collapse in the United States perhaps?
–
–
RUSSIAN TROOPS TO TRAIN IN AMERICA, GOV’T HAS CHICAGO EVACUATION PLANS
–
WHY ARE WE TRAINING RUSSIAN TROOPS IN THE UNITED STATES?
Are America’s treasured National Parks being co-opted by the New World Order under the guise of designating them World Heritage Sites,thus allowing foreign troops and United Nations agencies to take over our country in a soft coup d’etat? A blogger has photographed heavily equipped armored vehicles carrying the “Special Response Team” logo in and around the Great Smoky Mountains National Heritage site in Gatlinburg,TN. (1) ”It is a deadly serious piece of equipment never before used inside the US until now,” says the blogger “Sherrie” who then adds,“The vehicles don’t come more heavily armored.”
Sherrie has put up several pictures of these in-country tanks which she said she saw on and near Interstate 75 when she was traveling back roads near Winchester,Richmond,KY,and lists Rt. # 627 as an area of interest. “This spot is (around) the US Army Chemical Depot” which covers 14,000 acres in Kentucky backwoods,” the blogger says on the video which the Liberty web site is putting up for general viewing. She mentions chemical weapons involving 523 tons of nerve agents and shows aerial photography of train tracks going up to several buildings in this compound! “I’m not sure what they are,” she says,positing the notion of a possible FEMA camp in the Kentucky woods.
Now in addition to sighting of MRAP vehicles,“Sherrie” tells readers that “Russians were stopping and questioning people in the Gatlinburg,Smoky Mountain Parks region.” She quotes a high ranking individual in a local area state militia organization who she says she trusts as being truthful. The scenario developed when these apparently foreign troops wearing DHS uniforms with the Eagle insignia tried to enter Tennessee from Kentucky. “They were NOT Americans. . .appeared to be Russian or Eastern European!”
The Tennessee State Guard is being formulated as part of the 22 state Governors’ Militia Organization of volunteers which answers only to the Governors,not to the Federal government. (2) What has developed is the confiscation of equipment belong to National Guard Units nationwide. Trucks and other equipment sent to Iraq are not being replaced or returned to the states by the federal government because it is “too expensive” to transport the vehicles and equipment back into the country. This has prompted 22 governors to form State Militia Units paid for by the states and thus kept out of the reach of the federal government. (2)
Has the Division of Homeland Security partnered with the United Nations One World military apparatus with a sleight of hand operation known as World Heritage Site designation? The observant blogger lists these US treasures also as being so designated:Statue of Liberty,Everglades,Mammoth Cave,Yellowstone,Yosemite,all former National Parks. Folks,this designation and UN involvement coincides with the ten region DHS map of the United States! Has this under-the-radar give away of America already taken place,thus allowing the constitutionally prohibited onus of foreign troops being stationed on American soil? What is your Congress doing about this?
-
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONFIRMS RUSSIAN TROOPS TO TRAIN ON U.S. SOIL
Unprecedented drills cause consternation amongst conservatives
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Department of Defense has confirmed foreign media reports that Russian troops are set to target terrorists on Americans soil as part of an unprecedented joint drill with the United States which will take place in Colorado next month.
As we reported yesterday, Airborne troops from Russia are set to take part in drills focused around targeting terrorists at Fort Carson between May 24 and May 31. The soldiers will also be mingling with the local community, attending a baseball game in Colorado Springs during their stay.
Although it marks the first time Russian troops will train on U.S. soil, soldiers from a plethora of different nations have been involved in similar drills for well over a decade.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, told The New American in an e-mail. “This is the first time that American and Russian special operations troops have participated in a bilateral exercise.”
“According to Snyder, the exercises — which she said would last about three weeks in all — will serve to train and improve skills related to terror-war fighting. About 20 Russian soldiers will be participating, with most of the training to take place on the Fort Carson, Colorado, Army base and a mountain training area several hours away.”
The presence of foreign troops on U.S. soil has long caused consternation with many on the American right for a number of reasons, both historical and contemporary, stretching right back to when the British called upon German Hessian soldiers during the Revolutionary War.
More modern fears revolve around global UN peacekeeping troops being used to quell unrest inside America, an issue touched upon by Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting when he stated, “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.”
Drills such as FEMA’s 2009 NLE exercise, during which foreign troops worked alongside U.S. authorities, have led to concerns that the federal government would be forced to rely on foreign mercenaries to restore order, confiscate weapons or even incarcerate citizens during a national emergency, because of the likelihood that Americans would refuse to carry out such orders against other Americans.
One of the primary reasons why this story hasn’t gone viral is because doubt was cast on the issue when a known disinformation outlet (European Union Times) decided to embellish the details by adding completely manufactured nonsense about Russian troops “seizing the CIA’s main computer facility in Denver, the NSA’s main computer facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and taking control of main runways and terminals of the Denver International Airport.”
Despite the fact that these claims come from a source who is notorious for making a living out of fooling people into believing bogus stories, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze website carried them without retraction.
This in turn poisoned the well and led some to believe that the drills themselves, which are completely confirmed and admitted, were a hoax.
The Department of Defense’s acknowledgment that the exercises as described in the initial media reports are indeed taking place will hopefully put an end to this confusion and allow focus to return to the question of why Russian troops are training to kill “terrorists” on U.S. soil.
-
RUSSIA IS SENDING TROOPS TO THE UNITED STATES TO LEARN AMERICAN MILITARY TACTICS
By Eloise Lee | Business Insider
Apr. 25, 2012
Russian paratroopers will meet up with American forces next month for an unprecedented military exercise in Colorado, according to RT News.
It’s the first time Russian service members will be invited into the United States for a joint drill.
A Russian airborne task force will “exercise with U.S. special service weapons,” an announcement by Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson Col. Aleksandr Kucherenko revealed.
The official purpose of the joint training is to practice airborne tactics and anti-terror operations, such as dropping into a hostile area and conducting a “terrorist camp raid.”
“Soldiers of the two countries will hold a tactical airborne operation, including reconnaissance of an imaginary terrorists’ camp and a raid,” said Kucherenko.
It’s worth noting the Russians will have access to U.S. military weapons training at the Army’s Fort Carson — “Home of America’s Best” — ahead of the scheduled May 24-31 drills. They’ll also be trained to understand and operate hardware used by U.S. forces in airborne missions including “parachuting, operation planning, reconnaissance, assault operations and evacuations by helicopter.”
This announcement comes at a time when Russia actually has troops working in cooperation with China.
A joint naval drill in the Yellow Sea is currently underway, with Xinhuanet reporting the military exercises are focused on sea-to-air defense, anti-submarine warfare, recovery of hijacked vessels and shooting down aerial, maritime and underwater targets.
With 25 vessels and 13 aircraft deployed for the drill, it’s reportedly one of the largest Russian-Sino drills in recent history. Xinhuanet reports:
Four Russian warships from the Pacific fleet, including the aircraft carrier Varyag are also participating in the drills. Missile destroyers, missile frigates, missile boats, a support vessel and a hospital ship gathered from China’s side for the drills.
But while Russia and China join forces for this week’s Yellow Sea exercise, America isn’t standing by idly. The U.S. military is conducting its own annual drills and war games in the Asia Pacific region — much to the displeasure of Chinese officials.
 flikr/III Marine Expeditionary Force/MCI Pacific Philippines and U.S. Marine Corps service members provide cover during a 2011 boat raid exercise. |
Manuel Mogato at Reuters reports U.S. Marines, partnered with Philippine troops, took part in a drill simulating an “assault to retake a small island” — a little too close to reality for China, which has been embroiled in a dispute with the Philippines, and other neighbors, over contested territory around the South China Sea.
Mogato reports China warned that the US-Philippines war gaming would “raise the risk of armed conflict.”
But so far there’s no official word from Beijing about what it thinks of its Russian ally traipsing over to Colorado next month. Perhaps the Chinese government has a keen interest in the upcoming American-Russian drills and is keeping quiet for the sake of learning something from Russia following the U.S.-hosted exercises at Fort Carson.
-
RUSSIANS, AMERICANS TAKE PART IN JOINT AIR FORCE COUNTER-TERROR DRILL
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. may be troubled by Russian support for Syria’s Assad regime, freedom of expression violations and politically motivated prosecutions, but military-to-military cooperation continues, in line with the administration’s so-called “reset” of relations with the Kremlin.
For the third summer in a row, Russian Air Force personnel will join their American and Canadian counterparts in a joint counter-terror exercise beginning Monday, simulating a cooperative response to an aircraft hijacked by terrorists in international airspace.
Exercise “Vigilant Eagle” involves Russian, U.S. and Canadian personnel operating from command centers in the U.S. and Russia.
It is one of several exercises and exchanges agreed upon in a July 2009 agreement – an early product of the “reset” – signed by then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen and his Russian counterpart, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, restoring joint activities that were halted by the Bush administration in response to the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008.
A statement by North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said the Aug. 27-29 exercise will simulate an international flight “originating in Alaska and traveling into Russian airspace followed by one originating in Russia and traveling into the U.S. airspace.”
“The basic premise is that a foreign-flagged commercial air carrier on an international flight has been seized by terrorists,” it said. “The aircraft will not respond to communications. The exercise scenario creates a situation that requires both the Russian Air Force and NORAD to launch or divert fighter aircraft to investigate and follow the aircraft. The exercise will focus on the cooperative hand-off of the aircraft between fighter aircraft of the participating nations.”
NORAD said the exercise was part of an initiative aimed at transforming the relationship between the U.S. and Russian militaries and improving cooperation in preventing possible threats of air terrorism.
According to a Russian military spokesman, the exercise will involve personnel at NORAD headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo. and Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, Ala., and at two Russian bases in the country’s Far East.
Other initiatives to come out of the 2009 U.S.-Russia agreement included strategic discussions between U.S. Joint Staff and Russian General Staff, orientation for Russian military cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, other military academy faculty visits and a naval war game.
“As global powers, the United States and Russia have a special responsibility for ensuring peace and stability in the world,” the White House said in a statement at the time.
“Reestablishing our military-to-military bonds will enhance transparency, establish clear paths of communication, and focus our collective efforts on today’s global strategic challenges.”
In recent weeks U.S. officials have expressed strong concerns about Russian policies at home and abroad since Putin began this third presidential term in May, particularly its decision to join China in vetoing – for a third time – a U.N. Security Council resolution responding to the crisis in Syria.
State Department spokesman have also spoken out about “the democratic trend in Russia,” including prosecutions of opposition figures and “cases where freedom of expression has been squelched,” such as the jailing of members of the anti-Putin rock group, Pussy Riot.
-
RUSSIA, NATO TO HOLD JOINT EXERCISES IN 2013
BRUSSELS, January 16, 2013
(Itar-Tass) – Russia and NATO will hold a number of joint exercises and training sessions in 2013, Colonel-General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, told reporters after the meeting of the Russia-NATO Council at the level of Chiefs of General Staff on Wednesday.
He said their aim will be to drill practical interaction in logistics and fighting terrorism and also rescue on the high seas.
Supplying army contingents with fuel, foodstuffs and other resources will be drilled in the exercise in Slovakia in summer. Russia will also take part in NATO exercise scheduled for the second half of 2013 aimed for training in fighting terrorism on air transport, Gerasimov said.
He said the plan of military cooperation in 2013 was adopted at the meeting of the Russia-NATO Council at the level of Chiefs of General Staff on Wednesday. “We will continue cooperation in the fight against terrorism and piracy and in search and rescue on the high seas, in logistics and military-academic exchange,” he said.
-
OBAMA GIVES FOREIGN COPS NEW POLICE POWERS IN THE UNITED STATES
Sovereignty apparently set aside as agency exempted from law
by Bob Unruh | World Net Daily
A little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.
At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.
Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.
That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”
“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.
Obama’s order said he was removing the Reagan limitations on INTERPOL:
“AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.
At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.
“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.
“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.
“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.
“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.”
 International Criminal Court |
Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.
Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.
“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.
At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.
“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”
But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.”
Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will “full immunity” from U.S. laws and “with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.”
At National Review Andy McCarthy asked, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”
At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol’s headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn’t much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail. But he confirmed, “As to the specific reason why the Obama administration would decide, last week, to extend to INTERPOL the same suite of diplomatic privileges that are typically accorded to international organizations? I don’t have a good answer for that. My sense is that it probably has something to with the accessibility of INTERPOL’s secure criminal databases (on things like stolen passports and the like).”
But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren’t convinced.
“By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?”
-
Executive Order 13524 — Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
-
HIDDEN RUSSIAN POWER STRUGGLE EMERGING
By Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief
MARCH 29, 2013
With the strange death of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky this week in London, we are confronted with the fact that there is a power struggle going on within the hidden powers behind the government in Russia. As I have covered in detail in past briefs, the so-called “fall of the Soviet Union” was a carefully crafted deception wherein the Communist Party faked the demise of state power and devised a series of phony democratic moves to convince the world they were no longer a threat. During this manipulation a few dozen players with deep political connections retained control of the most important state monopolies through unseen insider deals. These “oligarches” began flaunting their wealth in Russia and western Europe creating a backlash among the Russian people over the “capitalistic system” and the “new” privileged class. This was purposely done to give the new (partial) freedoms a bad name and make the people long for the return of Communism and a strongman leader. Putin is that man.
The oligarches were subsequently “exiled” from the country over corruption charges, but they continued to exercise influence from afar over their cadre of insiders left behind. Putin, himself was one of those at first and visited Berezovsky’s Spanish villa five times the year he assumed the presidency for the first time. But somewhere along the way Putin and his circle of allies betrayed their mentors and took over the reins of power. Berezovsky survived previous assassination attempts that proved an ongoing power struggle but his death is now evidence that there has been big shift in the reins of power.
The older oligarches have been stripped of much of their assets in Russia, and the biggest and most powerful is now dead. While the British police are doing their best to convince the public that Boris Berezovsky committed suicide, the evidence points to murder. As the UK Guardian reported,
A postmortem into the death of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky found the cause of his death to be “consistent with hanging”, Thames Valley police have said. The examination by a Home Office pathologist found nothing to indicate a violent struggle, a police spokesman said. Further tests are now due to be carried out on the body of Berezovsky, 67, who was found dead at his Berkshire home on Saturday.
Earlier a friend of the Russian exile had told the Guardian that Berezovsky had marks around his neck. Nikolay Glushkov, who spoke to Galina Berezovsky after the businessman’s ex-wife saw his body in the bathroom of the Berkshire mansion, said: “A scarf was there. There were traces of him being strangled around the neck.”
Berezovsky was found by a bodyguard on Saturday after he had not surfaced since the night before. Family and friends who arrived at the house said there was no sign of blood and he was fully clothed. [also, the bathroom door was locked from the inside] He had been suffering from depression after a shattering high court defeat last year to his former business partner, Roman Abramovich.
There is a lot to derive from this partial elucidation of the events:
1) Obviously, Berezovsky could not have hanged himself and ended up lying dead in the bathtub. Suicide by hanging doesn’t allow for getting out of the noose after you’re dead and lying down in a tub. It’s not hard for a killer to lock the bathroom door from the inside while open, exit and then close the door behind him.
2) Why didn’t the police report the evidence pointed to strangulation, which would have been more accurate given the marks on Berezovsky’s neck? There appears to be some collusion in Britain with Russia in downplaying this murder.
3) I can easily understand Berezovsky’s depression after losing billions in a court case and then being forced to pay millions in legal fees to his former partner Roman Abramovich. But even more serious is the realization that he was being betrayed by the PTB in Russia. Abramovich was a Berezovsky protegee who had been brought into Berezovsky’s Sibneft oil business in order to manage Berezovsky’s interest as Boris was forced into exile over corruption charges. When Abramovich took over the company and cut out Berezovsky, Boris knew there was a purge going on, and he was the target. It’s impossible that man like Berezovsky would have just given in to this fight by killing himself.
The words of the lady judge who tried the case showed considerable prejudice towards Berezovsky—lambasting him personally from the bench in a one sided ruling that also seems to point to Russia leaning on the UK to undermine the grand oligarch.
But, the recent financial betrayal was only symptomatic of the larger power coup being engineered against Berezovsky by his communist peers in Moscow. To better understand this let me first describe some Soviet history during the reshaping of the USSR as I see it.
Perestroika (“restructuring”) and Glasnost (“openness”) were the beginning of the Soviet Union’s deception to fake its own demise. It was the brainchild, I believe, of Mikhail Suslov, a ruthless Stalinist who rose quickly within the party by carrying out Stalin’s purges with dispatch. But Suslov was also an intellectual of some merit. After Stalin’s death he became the strategic thinker in the Politburo opposing the brusque and embarrassing leadership of Nikita Khrushchev. Politburo opposition finally led to Krushchev’s ouster in 1964.
Suslov was the longest serving member of the Politburo at 26 years. After getting rid of Krushchev, the Politburo became the real leader of the Soviet Union by internal consensus and the various premiers were chosen from among them to act as figurehead.
Others in the Poliburo who were party to formulating the grand deception of the “fall” were Leonid Brezhnev (24 years in the Politburo and Premier), Victor Grishin (served 26 years), Andrei Gromyko (served 15 years, plus foreign minister), Andrei Kirilenko (served 20 years), Alexei Kosygin (served 20 years, First Deputy Premier who pushed for an earlier “reform” in the 1965 economic reform placating the Prague Spring rebellion), and Grigory Romanov (20 years).
These, I’m convinced, were really in power before the ruse of Communism’s collapse and directed the plan Gorbachev invoked. They were hardline Communists and not reformers. Anatoly Golitsyn’s book “New Lies for Old” details this grand deception. He says it was planned years in advance.
Through the early 80′s Suslov was considered to be the Party’s chief ideologue and second-in-command. He conceived of the “glasnost” and “perestroika” deceptions and was responsible for bringing Mikhail Gorbachev into the Politburo in 1979, as well as several other younger, softer leaders who they felt would be more believable to the West in pushing the idea that communism was mellowing.
Yuri Andropov, with his KGB background, was also a Politburo member and began introducing the Perestroika deception as Premier. He became the first Russian leader to be presented to the West as a “jazz-loving Premier” with Western leanings.
Glastnost (“openness”) officially began in 1986 with the symbolic invitation to presumed dissident Andrei Sakharov to return to Moscow after six years of internal exile in Gorky. In 1987 he rehabilitated those out of favor with Stalin which led to the De-Stalinization movement. 1988 would see the dismantling of free speech controls, a long-time hallmark of Soviet control. Thousands of political prisoners were also released.
During the middle and late 80s, almost all of the old guard Politburo members were gone, and seats on the Politburo were expanded to accommodate a host of lesser officials including: Vladimir Ivashko, Yegor Ligachev, Nikolai Ryzhkov, Viktor Chebrikov, Boris Yeltsin, Vadim Medvedev, and many others. But it was a body in constant change with persons being relieved of duties and new candidates nominated almost every month.
Whether or not this game of musical chairs was a result of the power vacuum left by the death of all the old guard or a ruse to confuse Kremlin watchers, I’m not sure. But, none of these had staying power and the constant changes and replacements continued through 1991 when the Politburo and the official Communist Party was disbanded by Boris Yeltsin. That, of course, was according to the grand deception.
Returning to the reform deception, in 1988 the economic reforms (Perestroika) were begun in earnest, with the opening up of the economy to private ownership and freedom to buy and sell for a profit, and most importantly, to deal with the West in private trade. This latter aspect would provide the engine that made the first Russian millionaires as they imported and sold goods from the West that had been longed-for by Russians.
The new reforms were, however, encumbered with high taxes, employment restrictions and bribes, but certain favored entrepreneurs (who eventually became oligarches) were allowed to evade enforcement and get rich faster than others. That is the key to understanding why the rise of the oligarches was not simply a product of the free market.
Boris Berezovsky was one of the first favored ones who was allowed to begin importing Mercedez cars into Russia. Then he founded LogoVAZ with Badri Patarkatsishvili (another up-and-coming oligarch) and Vladimir Kadannikov of AvtoVAZ, a dealership which serviced foreign cars. This team made obscene profits by taking cars on consignment and paying the seller months later during a period of high inflation. The seller’s money was highly devalued by the time Berezovky paid it back, and Boris pocketed the difference. Berezovsky even got confident enough to create a new company promising to build a newly designed Russian car and raised $50M in the process but the company failed.
The majority of state industries were privatized by a process mimicking what Czechoslovakia did where almost all citizens received gifts of vouchers—supposedly to keep the industries out of the control of the new and emerging wealthy class (still too poor to be considered wealthy by Western standards). In fact, none of the emerging wealthy had anywhere near enough money to buy any portion of the state industries, so the voucher program turned out to be a back door way for them to gain control.
Anatoly Chubais was the brains behind the voucher program and he was appointed by Yeltsin in 1991 to administer the program. Here’s how they did it. Voucher privatization took place between 1992 and 1994 and roughly 98 percent of the population participated—which meant that the share each person owned was so minuscule as to be worthless. The only thing anyone could do was sell their vouchers to those with enough money to buy and accumulate the shares. The buyers turned out to be all the young oligarches paying people with highly devalued rubles.
Using these vouchers the “nouveau riche” like Mikhail Chernoy gained control of the entire aluminum industry. In doing so, he made a very interesting admission to some British documentary filmmakers: “[W]e bought companies either with vouchers or the state gave us factories in exchange for loans from the US.” Berezovsky claimed he approached George Soros for money to help him buy into the soviet companies, but Soros declined. However, by Chernoy’s admission, it is obvious some of the globalists did help finance the oligarches.
Boris Berezovsky took advantage of his friendship with State Property Commissioner and private banker Vladimir Plevanov in order to get his share of companies. Plevanov would grant insiders loans from the State bank in order to put up the cash portion they lacked with their voucher control.
This became known as the Loans for Shares scandal of 1995 and 1996. It was conceived of by banker Vladimir Potanin and endorsed by Anatoly Chubais (who started the privatization by voucher scheme and who became deputy prime minister to Boris Yeltsin). The official story was that the Russian government was broke and needed to raise funds. In reality, the government had control of the printing presses and was never broke. Much of the funds borrowed under this transfer scheme went toward Boris Yeltsin’s reelection campaign in 1996.
This is how the young oligarches gained majority shares in state-owned industries like Norilsk Nickel (Vladimir Potanin) , YUKOS oil (Mikhail Khodorkovsky), LUKoil (Vagit Alekperov), Sibneft oil (Boris Berezovsky), Surgutneftegas (Vladimir Bogdanov), Novolipetsk Steel (Vlad Lisin) and Mechel (Igor Zyuzin). Technically these industries were leased to the oligarches through auctions for money lent by commercial banks controlled by the oligarches, and guaranteed by the State Bank. But they weren’t open auctions and the only ones bidding were the insider oligarches. The loans were never repaid and the leases turned into shares at a very low price.
Another young oligarch, Vladimir Gusinsky built up the first private television network in Russia, NVT, in 1993. He then used his profits to gain control of a private bank. A rivalry developed between the two when Berezovsky was able to get control of Soviet Channel 1 TV which was floundering. Berezovsky got control by trading loans to the state for shares, worth many times more than his credits.
Prior to the 1996 election, Yeltsin the supposed reformer was way behind in the polls to resurgent communist leader Genady Zyuganov, and claimed nationalist Valimir Zhirinovsky. A lot of Russians were unhappy about inflation and privatization and longed for the return of communist security.
General Alexander Korzhakov was Yeltsin’s handler at the time and controlled all access to the president. Berezovsky, Chubais, Gusinsky and the other oligarches, who had formed a coalition at Davos, Switzerland that year where they plotted to replace Korshakov as the puppeteers. They used their media assets to boost Yeltsin in the polls and just before the election convinced Yeltsin to sack Korshakov and other top security leaders in Russia as a ploy to show the people Yeltsin was serious about removing the old guard.
During the following Yeltsin heyday, Berezovsky rose to high position within the reformed Soviet state. He was named to the Kremlin Security Council by Yeltsin and also served a year as Executive Secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)—which was the economic and political bloc for former Soviet States that chose to remain true to the Soviet and Marxist ideology.
A contributor to the online “Russia List” blog even posted that a Kremlin insider had said that he observed Yeltsin step aside and let Berezovsky enter a meeting room ahead of him– a definitive sign of hierarchical preference in Russian society. Clearly Yeltsin the drunk wasn’t running Russia, but who was?
The oligarches surrounding and influencing Yeltsin were forced to find a replacement as Yeltsin’s alcoholism and bad health took its toll. Berezovsky is credited with bringing Vladimir Putin to power, and formed a new Unity political party to champion the hand-picked successor. Berezovsky himself got elected to Parliament under that party banner representing a far-flung district in Chechnya.
Meanwhile the various Oligarches were beginning to lose their immunity and were indicted for various illegal activities: According to Matt Taibbi, in his book, The eXile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia as quoted here,
Chubais admitted to receiving a $3 million interest-free loan from Stolichny Bank, apparently in exchange for Stolichny’s victory in the auction of AgPromBank . . . which controlled the second-largest banking network in Russia. He had also been caught failing to pay taxes the year before. Furthermore, the income he did later report was due to investments through a shady investment company called Montes Auri which was raided the same day Kazakov was fired, using money from the Stolichny loan.
That’s also about the time things started to go south between Putin and Berezovsky, at least according to the official histories. Putin reportedly wanted to stop the favoritism that allowed the oligarches to gain access to privatized companies, and Berezovsky saw his insider system threatened. Whether or not this was real or feigned is still debated. I think Putin was merely tightening the noose and giving warning to the other oligarches that he was coming after Berezovsky.
Even before Putin was made president, Berezovsky was indicted for “crimes against the economy.” He was abroad at one of his foreign villas when the indictment came down, and he decided not to return. He was convicted in absentia of “economic crimes” and eventually found asylum in Britain where he lived until his recent murder.
This is where the history gets murky. Putin, upon getting elected became Berezovsky’s enemy and started taking back all of the state owned properties the oligarches had gained through insider contacts. And yet, Spanish intelligence had been tracking all of Berezovsky’s movements and in the process found out that Putin visited Berezovsky 5 times at his Spanish villa the year he ascended to the presidency, clearly indicating that Berezovsky was acting the role of kingmaker, and leading analysts like myself suspected that the rift between Putin and the oligarches was more feigned than real.
Putin’s role in the broader Perestroika deception was to begin the resurgence of Russian power and to be a champion to the people who are frustrated with greed and corruption in Russia. Of course, those who really knew how things worked in the Kremlin knew that Putin and his cronies were as corrupt as the oligarches they were attacking.
Berezovsky’s constant harangues about Putin from his British home appeared to be political theater. He even claimed he was going to finance a coup against Putin and liberate Russia from Putin strong-arm tactics. But no one would openly advertise a prospective coup and expect it to succeed. Now, with Berezovsky’s murder, I’m more inclined to believe there was a real rift there after all.
Putin, for his part, has successfully developed a strong-man and fearsome reputation in Russia. He’s hated among those who long for real democratic values (everyone knows the elections have been rigged), but Putin is popular among those longing for the return of Russian hegemony. Putin has become the champion of the downtrodden after jailing another of Berezovsky’s protegees, Mikail Khodorkovsky, who had a controlling interest in YUKOS oil. Interestingly, Khodorkovsky transferred his controlling shares in YUKOS to Jacob Rothschild before going to jail.
So, either Khodorkovsky has a relationship with the Anglo-American globalists, or he is taking their help, but never intending to fully come their way. Khodorkovsky certainly doesn’t act the part of a globalist protegee. Rather than champion capitalism and free markets, Khodorkovsky is promoting the return of communism, even from jail, and vowing to run for political office after his release.
For a prisoner and enemy of the state, he certainly has had a lot of freedom to promote his writings and the media gladly circulates his views. He even has a considerable folk following in Russia as he is viewed as the persecuted underdog. Putin and his lap-dog prosecutors continue to find new and arbitrary reasons for extending Khodorkovsky’s jail time, gaining Khodorkovsky more sympathy the worse it gets.
Either Khodorkovsky is being persecuted to boost his image as a contrarian savior, or he’s a globalist lackey who Putin won’t ever release from jail. Time will tell. The communists are masters at preparing controlled opposition in order to fool the people, but the globalists are also looking for future leaders loyal to them that they can put in charge after Russia is defeated in WWIII. That’s right, despite the globalist determination to absorb a nuclear first strike on our military, they do intend to beat Russia, and bring it into the globalist NWO.
In summary, I’m changed my long-held view that the older oligarches are really the ones running the Soviet deception. It would have been almost impossible for them to run things from Europe without the danger of Western intelligence capturing some of their communications with Moscow. The older Politburo members who formulated this grand deception are all dead and having selected young communists to carry it out, it was probably inevitable that a rift would arise between Berezovsky and his protogees, especially after empowering Putin with so much.
With the death of Berezovsky, I now believe that Putin has pulled off a sort of coup of his own by rallying the younger oligarches like Abramovich and Chubais, who are still loyal to him, and decided they didn’t need Berezovsky, Gusinksky and Chernoy—all of which are permanently exiled in Europe and divested of their Russian holdings, or dead. More violence may follow.
Wikileaks revealed some American diplomatic cables that implied that Russia has become a “virtual mafia state” due to systematic corruption within Putin’s favorite cadres. Considering how Putin recently engineered the elections as president, then prime minister and now president again I think we’ve seen the rise of the Stalinist, one man state again rather than just a figurehead puppet regime. Putin, of course, adamantly denies that he is a dictator, but everyone close to the Kremlin walks in fear of crossing him.
It is also interesting to note that Anatoly Chubais, still claims loyalty to Putin but has numerous ties with the globalists. He’s on the advisory council of the Council on Foreign Relations, the foremost club of globalists in the US. He is also a member of the Advisory Council for JPMorgan Chase since September 2008. So, although Chubais is mildly critical of Putin’s increasing intervention in the Russian economy, he is quietly minding his business as the CEO of the Russian Nanotechnology Industry (RUSNANO). Perhaps as a Russian with one foot in both Putin’s camp and the globalists, we’ll see. Chubais may be given another chance at power someday when Russia is defeated during WWIII. The globalists are always thinking years ahead.
-
PUTIN SIGNS LAW ALLOWING HIM TO CHOOSE GOVERNORS
Gulf – Times
APRIL 2, 2013
President Vladimir Putin has signed a law letting him pick candidates to lead Russia’s regions if local lawmakers scrap popular polls, in what critics called a setback for democracy in the Russian leader’s new term.
The law allows each of the country’s 83 regions to repeal direct elections of governors, introduced just last year in a concession during a wave of protests by Russians fed up with Putin’s dominance and demanding a stronger political voice.
Putin has said that the law is needed to protect the rights of minorities in ethnically mixed regions such as the mostly Muslim provinces of the insurgency-plagued North Caucasus.
The Kremlin is concerned that direct elections in the volatile regions could spark unrest or involve candidates whose loyalty is in question. Russia is holding the Winter Olympics next February in Sochi, close to the North Caucasus provinces.
But critics of the president say the law is a rollback in democracy that favours the ruling United Russia party, which is far less popular than Putin himself and had its parliamentary majority sharply reduced in a December 2011 election.
They fear the Kremlin and United Russia will use the measure to sideline opposition candidates in favour of loyal governors.
“It’s another lever to manage everything from Moscow,” said Boris Nemtsov, a prominent opposition leader and a former cabinet minister in the 1990s under Putin’s predecessor, Boris Yeltsin.
Under the new rules, each regional legislature can vote to abandon direct elections, instead choosing their governor from a list of three candidates handed down by Putin.
Putin, in power as president or prime minister since 2000, scrapped popular elections of regional governors in 2004 as part of a drive to tighten his grip on the political system.
They were reintroduced last year amid the biggest opposition protests of his rule.
“It was a feint,” Nemtsov said of their reintroduction. “Now Putin thinks the protest have faded and he has decided to roll back everything.”
Putin has drawn criticism from Western governments and activists in Russia for what opponents say are restrictive laws, a crackdown on NGOs and the prosecution of dissenters since he began a new presidential term.
-
IS PUTIN TRADING HIS OWN PARTY FOR A NEW POWER BASE?
With his United Russia party’s popularity diminishing, Putin appears to be reorganizing his political power with the Popular Front, an East German-style, extra-political body.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent |Christian Science Monitor
April 2, 2013
An East German model
Though the Popular Front concept appears infused with nostalgia for the old USSR – still a powerful political meme in Russia – it is not particularly a Soviet idea. In the USSR, a one-party state, the Communist Party played the role of the sun, around which all civil society groups revolved. Some experts believe Putin has adapted his Popular Front scheme from the former East Germany where he served as a KGB spy in the late 1980s. In East Germany, nominally a multiparty and pluralistic state, an overarching National Front served as the instrument of control overall.
Some analysts speculate that Putin may actually replace United Russia, which is led by former President and current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, perhaps by calling snap Duma elections within a year and throwing his personal weight behind the Popular Front.
Putin recently ordered changes to Russia’s electoral rules, to re-introduce a system by which half of the Duma’s 450 seats are elected by proportional representation – in which people vote for a party rather than a candidate – and the other half will be chosen by first-past-the-post local constituency races. That change, which is a return to Russia’s 1990s system, will strongly favor forces that are strong on the ground in localities, as the Popular Front is expected to be, over national-scale political parties.
Ironically, it was Putin himself who abolished local constituency contests a decade ago, and filled the Duma with deputies chosen solely by political parties, back in the days when he was basing his power on a strong majority parliamentary caucus of United Russia.
A power shift or window-dressing?
“The Popular Front was conceived some time ago, but then political and economic conditions eased, and it was put on the back burner for a time,” says Mikhail Delyagin, director of the independent Institute for Globalization Studies in Moscow.
“Now the economy is stalling, conflicts within the elite are sharpening, and we are going to see United Russia scapegoated for all problems. The Popular Front is being created out of the same elites, but some figures will be removed, and new ones will appear. The result will be a new party of power, looking immaculate and stainless, instead of the scandal-tainted United Russia…. It’s basically a change of window-dressing,” Mr. Delyagin says.
Others argue that Putin’s purpose is not to replace United Russia, but simply to diminish its role as the Popular Front, with a street-level and store-front presence in every Russian region, takes on more functions of shaping the country’s political realities – including the selection of candidates for the Duma.
“The Popular Front will be a movement, not a party. It won’t take part directly in elections,” says Dmitri Orlov, director of the independent Agency of Political and Economic Communications in Moscow.
“The tasks of the Front will be to draw political parties, public organizations, and specific individuals into the authorities’ orbit, and to enforce their loyalty. Through the Front, Putin will hold regular dialogues with different social groups and public constituencies; it may become a mechanism for renovating the elites” according to the Kremlin’s designs, he says.
-
PUTIN RESTORES SOVIET ‘HERO OF LABOUR’ TITLE
MARCH 29, 2013
AFP – Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday restored an honorary Hero of Labour title that was first awarded in the Lenin era to workers who outperformed their Communist work quotas.
The Russian leader — a former KGB agent who once called the dissolution of the Soviet Union one of the great tragedies of the 20th century — signed a presidential decree restoring the famous title that disappeared when the USSR fell apart in 1991.
“In the Soviet Union, we had a title called the Hero of Socialist Labour, and on the whole, I think this was justified,” Putin said in remarks published on the Kremlin website.
“I know that this is the view not only of the machine workers, but of those who generally do things with their hands and use their heads,” the 60-year-old president said.
“This is also the view of our leading professional union,” he added in reference to the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin signed a decree restoring the title shortly after making those remarks.
The Hero of Labour was one of the Soviet Union’s most coveted awards and a sign of either a person or factory’s commitment to socialist ideals.
The Soviet Union functioned through a strict quota system regulating the amounts of goods that needed to be produced daily by any one person or collective.
Those who consistently outperformed those requirements and were recommended by others were then considered by party leaders for the award.
The Soviet Union eventually crumbled because its economy malfunctioned and the country suffered from shortages of products that people needed but were never produced — or done so in insufficient numbers.
-
PUTIN PROMOTES RUSSIAN’S PEOPLE’S FRONT AS NEW POWER BASE
By Darya Korsunskaya
MARCH 29, 2013
ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin staged a televised meeting on Friday with a loyal support group called the People’s Front, suggesting he may promote it as an alternative power base to his scandal-plagued ruling party.
At an event that mixed echoes of Soviet Communist Party congresses with the atmospherics of a U.S. talk show, Putin said he planned to raise the Front’s status by making it a “public movement” and holding a formal founding congress in June.
He first set up the Front two years ago to broaden the appeal of his ruling United Russia party after regional elections showed its influence waning. Since then, United Russia’s reputation has taken further blows.
At Friday’s event, Putin made a series of populist pledges to loyalists assembled in the southern heartland city of Rostov-on-Don – ranging from curbs on severance pay for corporate bosses to better care for orphans, to higher standards for teaching Russian history in schools.
“We will meet regularly … so that what we promised our citizens is not forgotten,” Putin said.
Sitting in the front row flanked by activists, he called for uniforms at state schools and for a post-Soviet version of the honorary title Hero of Socialist Labour. He made good on the latter promise by creating the title Hero of Labour of the Russian Federation in a decree signed shortly after the meeting.
Less than a year after his inauguration for a third term, Putin is maneuvering to firm up his political footing in the years before a parliamentary election in 2016. He could seek a fourth term in 2018.
Although his ruling United Russia party faces few serious challengers, it has lost much of its power to generate public enthusiasm since the days when it was first set up as Putin’s political vehicle.
The party’s reputation was harmed by allegations of fraud in a December 2011 parliamentary election, which led to the biggest opposition protests of Puin’s 13-year rule. Demonstrators branded it the “party of crooks and thieves”.
Putin responded with what opponents say is a clampdown on dissent, but has also distanced himself from United Russia, handing its top post to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
Disclosures that senior United Russia members held expensive properties abroad have proved embarrassing when Putin and the party are criticizing the West and pushing legislation to bar officials from holding foreign bank accounts or stocks.
The former head of the ethics committee in the State Duma lower chamber quit the parliament in February after documents posted on the Internet showed his name on deeds of property in Florida worth $2 million. Three other United Russia members have quit the Duma in recent weeks.
The troubles have prompted speculation Putin could dissolve the Duma and call a parliamentary election before 2016.
A Popular Front representative said the group did not intend to become a political party. However, under legislation Putin has submitted, half of the Duma’s 450 deputies would be elected in district races rather than from party lists, which means Putin loyalists could run without being part of a party.
-
THE LAW OF POLITICS’ ACCORDING TO SERGEI LAVROV
An exclusive interview with Russia’s top diplomat.
INTERVIEW BY SUSAN B. GLASSER | Foreign Policy
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, just back from his first meeting with his new American counterpart, John Kerry, sat for a wide-ranging interview in March with Foreign Policy Editor in Chief Susan B. Glasser in Moscow, holding forth on everything from why Americans can no longer adopt Russian babies to how come Russia and China team up so much at the United Nations.
Susan Glasser, Foreign Policy editor in chief: Minister Lavrov, thank you so much for taking the time. It’s a pleasure to speak with you. We are doing a special issue of Foreign Policy magazine that will come out in May and dedicated to power in all of its manifestations, so this is a perfect chance to have a conversation with you. And I appreciate you taking the time.
Sergei Lavrov: Thank you.
FP: Well, first of all, we are interested in Russian and American relations. And I’m wondering if you could give me a sense of what you think comes after the reset. I know it was not your word.…
Lavrov: It wasn’t. You know, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, but apart from nuclear-wise, we have a lot in common. We have huge territories, natural resources, technologies, science, education, and of course human capital. And the two countries are basically self-sufficient, but both are not trying to be isolated. Isolationism is not loved in this world, and because the problems we share … the challenges, the threats, they are transnational, transborder, and it is only through collective effort that we can help … reduce these threats. Terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, environment, food security, energy security, all these cannot be resolved by any single power alone. Therefore, we value very much our partnership with foreign countries, and the United States is the leading power.
And our relations have, I would say, a lot of positive elements. We’ve managed to move forward along the way of nuclear disarmament. We agreed on the START treaty. We’ve managed to sign and ratify the agreement, which is called 123 agreement, the agreement on cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which is quite beneficial for both the United States and the Russian Federation and is very important for ensuring nuclear safety and nuclear security in third countries. We’ve managed to create an unprecedented mechanism for bilateral relations, the presidential commission, which has some 20 working groups embracing all manageable areas of cooperation. We’ve managed to sign an agreement on facilitating the visa issue for tourists and businessmen from our countries. And I believe this is very much in the interests of our peoples.…
Of course the relationship between such big countries can never be cloudless. And we have some things which still divide us. Missile defense is one case in point. We still believe that if the Russian Federation and the United States bring their minds together, we can develop a common system which would be efficient in protecting the Euro-Atlantic region from threats coming outside this region. The situation so far is in a deadlock. The U.S. and NATO, which supported the U.S., believe that the system which is proposed by the United States is flawless and it cannot be changed an inch. However, the Government Account[ability] Office in the United States Congress recently produced a report which challenges the proposed configuration of this missile defense in Europe. This is not to say that our experts would agree 100 percent with this GAO report, but this indicates that even inside the United States there are different opinions as to how to handle the problem of missile proliferation, so we are reiterating our openness to discussing this issue with the United States, provided we put our brains together and provided our intellectual ability is not questioned. We are convinced that doing it together — doing it together with the United States and the Europeans — would not only be the most efficient way to try to find a response to the threat of missile proliferation, but it would bring our relationship with NATO — the Russia and NATO relationship — to a qualitatively new level. It will be really a step closer to us becoming allies again like we used to be during World War II.
There are other problems which negatively affect the relationship between Russia and the United States. And the situation which arose after the so-called Magnitsky Act was adopted by the U.S. Congress is a case in point. I have no doubt that the sponsors of that act, who are motivated by the desire to have something instead of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which became an impediment for the American business after Russia joined the WTO, and just as they wanted to use Jackson-Vanik, which has been kept artificially after all the emigration programs of the Soviet Union have been removed and the Russian Federation did not deserve the continuation of the Jackson-Vanik amendment but they kept it in order to have a leverage — influence in Russian Federation politics. And when they understood that this amendment was already making damage to the American interests, they tried to invent something to replace it, and that’s how the Magnitsky Act appeared, absolutely artificial act which was in fact an attempt to replace an anti-Soviet amendment with anti-Russian legislation. The Americans knew that we would be reacting the way we did. We reacted, you know; we adopted, our parliament adopted, the Dima Yakovlev law. And this is not our choice, but this is the law of the politics. You always reciprocate. Positively, negatively, but this is something which you cannot change. It was not invented by us. It is the law of international relations. Reciprocity is the key.
-
RUSSIA DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER SURKOV RESIGNS
By Clara Weiss
On May 8, President Vladimir Putin approved the “voluntary resignation” of Deputy Prime Minister Vladislav Surkov, universally regarded as the “number two in the Kremlin”. The resignation of Surkov, for over a decade one of the most influential figures in Russian politics, reflects the deep instability of the Putin regime.
Surkov is the second high-ranking member of the government to leave in the first year of Putin’s third term as president. In November, Putin fired Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, a former close ally. Numerous Duma (parliamentary) deputies have resigned in recent months as a result of corruption scandals.
Surkov is a particularly cynical representative of the gangster bourgeoisie that emerged during the restoration of capitalism on the basis of the destruction and looting of the Soviet economy, and is one of the most hated politicians in the country.
He began his business career as a Komsomol (Soviet youth organisation) member and became prominent in the 1990s, rising rapidly to become one of the most influential figures in the Russian financial sector, where he worked in marketing and advertising. From 1991 to 1996, he sat on the management committee of the financial group and later at Menatep Bank. In the 1990s, Menatep, which was later turned into the oil company Yukos, controlled significant parts of the Russian economy under the leadership of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Surkov then worked for Alfa-Bank, another influential bank of the time. In 1998, he worked for the Russian state television broadcaster, and from 1999 for the presidential administration in the Kremlin.
For years, Surkov was regarded as the chief ideologist of the authoritarian regime of the Russian president and the main man behind the personality cult cultivated around Putin. In July 2011, he said in an interview: “I think … Putin is a man who was sent to Russia by fate and God in an hour which was very difficult for our country, our great, common nation.”
In Putin’s first two terms (2000-2008) and for the majority of Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency (2008-2012), Surkov was responsible for domestic policy. He also played a key role in the Second Chechen War, which cost the lives of tens of thousands. At the same time, he sat on the boards of various state-owned corporations.
Since the crisis of 2008/2009, Surkov has supported the “liberalization policy” of Medvedev, who struck a more conciliatory tone towards the US than Putin, and allowed more foreign capital into the country. Surkov spoke out against a third term for Putin.
After the start of the middle class protests in December 2011, led by the liberal opposition, Surkov was dismissed from the Kremlin and sent to the White House, the seat of the Russian cabinet. While he criticized opposition leaders as Western stooges, he signalled support for the protesters, whom he described in an interview as “our best people”. After Putin’s election as president, Vice Premier Surkov was regarded as a key ally of Prime Minister Medvedev.
His resignation was accepted by Putin on Wednesday, while Medvedev, Surkov’s immediate superior, refrained from comment. Surkov’s press representatives stated he would now withdraw completely from politics. According to a spokeswoman for Premier Medvedev, Surkov had initially tendered his resignation after talks with Putin on April 26. Surkov’s resignation is being interpreted in the Russian press as a blow to Medvedev, whose possible dismissal has been speculated upon for months.
More recently, Surkov had spoken openly against Putin’s economic and domestic political course.
In a speech on May 1 at the London School of Economics, Surkov sharply criticized the investigation into the Skolkovo project organised by the Investigative Committee, which is subordinate to the President and a Russian version of the FBI. A technical innovation centre is to be established in the village of Skolkovo near Moscow, to provide an example for the “modernization” of the Russian economy. The project was launched during the Medvedev presidency, and Surkov had played a leading role in it from the beginning.
The Investigative Committee has accused the vice-president of the project, Alexei Beltyukov, of having embezzled $750,000, which was used to finance the opposition leader Ilya Ponomarev. According to the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, this financial transaction occurred with the knowledge of Surkov. Forbes claims this was one of the main reasons for Surkov’s resignation.
Like Surkov, Ponomarev worked in the 1990s for a long period with the now imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He is one of the leading figures of the Stalinist “Left Front”, which is supported by the Pabloite RSB (Russian Socialist Movement). Ponomarev has called the investigation against Skolkovo “part of a broader attack on the liberal government”.
In his speech at the London School of Economics Surkov also stated that the Russian economy must rid itself of its dependence on natural resources, and insisted on the participation of international companies in Skolkovo.
This critique of commodity dependency has been expressed by growing sections of the ruling elite in Russia, especially since the crisis of 2008. The Russian economy depends heavily on oil and gas exports, and for this reason has been particularly affected by the crisis.
To reduce dependency on commodity exports, which is a direct result of the massive de-industrialization of the 1990s, a “re-industrialisation” policy and the break-up of state monopolies in the main economic sectors are being discussed in ruling circles. This policy can only be implemented with foreign investment and will be accompanied by massive attacks on the industrial working class. Although Putin has taken up this course, he is not going far enough for the liberal factions of the ruling elite.
Putin and other sections of the bourgeoisie fear jeopardizing their own position in the economy. A greater opening up of the Russian economy to foreign capital would also increase pressure on the Kremlin’s foreign policy, primarily on the part of the United States.
In 2011, the NATO attack on Libya exposed the foreign policy differences between the Putin and Medvedev camps. Putin described the war as a “medieval crusade”, which Medvedev dismissed as “inappropriate” At that time Medvedev, along with Germany and China, abstained on the UN resolution for war.
The battle lines, between the US and the Western European powers on the one hand and Moscow on the other, have hardened in the last year over the issue of Syria and the conflict with Iran.
Surkov’s defence of the government’s social policies has also caused tensions in the Kremlin. Last year, the government agreed to massive austerity measures, which will further curtail the few social rights and facilities remaining after the restoration of capitalism, especially in education and health.
Last year, the rate of inflation for staple foods such as bread, fruit and vegetables was around 15 percent. The prices of gas and heating have also increased 10 to 15 percent. It is estimated that the real incomes of the already completely impoverished population have declined by 5 to 15 percent during the official “recovery” of the last three years. One in three people lives below the official poverty line.
In a staged public debate on Tuesday, Putin accused the Social Affairs Ministers of failing to meet the targets for social measures set at the beginning of his third term. Surkov, who was also responsible for the implementation of the President’s requirements, countered this in front of the cameras, saying that the government was working “perfectly, formally”.
Putin’s criticism of the government’s social policy is cheap propaganda: the social cuts were implemented under his direction. By publicly attacking the ministers directly responsible, he is trying to distance himself from the austerity measures and so cover up his own role and responsibility.
-
VLADIMIR PUTIN: RUSSIA AND THE CHANGING WORLD
June 2, 2012
In my previous articles I have discussed some of the key foreign challenges that Russia now faces. This subject deserves more detailed discussion and not only because foreign policy is an integral part of any government strategy. External challenges and the changing world around us are forcing us to make decisions that have implications for our economy, our culture, and our budgetary and investment planning.
Russia is part of the greater world whether we are talking about the economy, the spread of information or the development of culture. We do not wish to and cannot isolate ourselves. We hope that our openness will lead to economic and cultural development in Russia while increasing levels of mutual trust, a resource that is in increasingly short supply today.
However, we intend to be consistent in proceeding from our own interests and goals rather than decisions dictated by someone else. Russia is only respected and has its interests considered when the country is strong and stands firmly on its own feet. Russia has generally enjoyed the privilege of conducting an independent foreign policy and this is what it will continue to do. In addition, I am convinced that global security can only be achieved through cooperation with Russia rather than by attempts to push it into the background, weaken its geopolitical position or compromise its defenses.
Our foreign policy objectives are strategic in nature and are not based on opportunistic considerations. They reflect Russia’s unique role on the world political map as well as its role in history and in the development of civilization.
I do not doubt that we will continue on our constructive course to enhance global security, renounce confrontation, and counter challenges like the proliferation of nuclear weapons, regional conflict and crises, terrorism and drug trafficking. We will do everything we can to see that Russia enjoys the latest achievements in scientific and technical progress and to assist our entrepreneurs in occupying their rightful place in the world market.
We will strive to ensure a new world order, one that meets current geopolitical realities, and one that develops smoothly and without unnecessary upheaval.
Who undermines confidence
As before, I believe that the major principles necessary for any feasible civilization include inalienable right to security for all states, the inadmissability of the excessive use of force, and the unconditional observance of the basic principles of international law. To neglect any of these principles can only lead to the destabilization of international relations.
It is through this prism that we perceive some aspects of U.S. and NATO conduct that contradict the logic of modern development, relying instead on the stereotypes of a bloc-based mentality. Everyone understands what I am referring to – an expansion of NATO that includes the deployment of new military infrastructure with U.S.-drafted plans to establish a missile defense system in Europe. I would not touch on this issue if these plans were not conducted in close proximity to Russian borders, if they did not undermine our security and global stability in general.
Our arguments are well known, and I will not spell them out again. Regrettably, our Western partners are unresponsive and have simply brushed our concerns aside.
We are worried that although the outline of our “new” relations with NATO are not yet final, the alliance is already providing us with “facts on the ground” that are counterproductive to building mutual trust. At the same time, this approach will backfire with respect to global objectives, making it more difficult to cooperate on a positive agenda and will impede any constructive reallignment in international relations.
The recent series of armed conflicts started under the pretext of humanitarian aims is undermining the time-honored principle of state sovereignty, creating a moral and legal void in the practice of international relations.
It is often said that human rights override state sovereignty. This is undoubtedly true – crimes against humanity must be punished by the International Court. However, when state sovereignty is too easily violated in the name of this provision, when human rights are protected from abroad and on a selective basis, and when the same rights of a population are trampled underfoot in the process of such “protection,” including the most basic and sacred right – the right to one’s life – these actions cannot be considered a noble mission but rather outright demagogy.
It is important for the United Nations and its Security Council to effectively counter the dictates of some countries and their arbitrary actions in the world arena. Nobody has the right to usurp the prerogatives and powers of the UN, particularly the use of force with regard to sovereign nations. This concerns NATO, an organization that has been assuming an attitude that is inconsistent with a “defensive alliance.” These points are very serious. We recall how states that have fallen victim to “humanitarian” operations and the export of “missile-and-bomb democracy” appealed for respect for legal standards and common human decency. But their cries were in vain – their appeals went unheard.
It seems that NATO members, especially the United States, have developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem.
By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others. This is something that cannot be accepted. Many countries prefer not to be straight about this for various reasons, but that’s another matter. Russia will always call things as it sees them and do so openly. I’d like to emphasize again that violating the principle of unity and the inalienable right to security – despite numerous declarations committing to it – poses a serious threat. Eventually these threats become reality for those states that initiate such violations, for many reasons.
The Arab Spring: lessons and conclusions
A year ago the world witnessed a new phenomenon – nearly simultaneous demonstrations against authoritarian regimes in many Arab countries. The Arab Spring was initially received with hope for positive change. People in Russia sympathized with those who were seeking democratic reform.
However, it soon became clear that events in many countries were not following a civilized scenario. Instead of asserting democracy and protecting the rights of the minority, attempts were being made to depose an enemy and to stage a coup, which only resulted in the replacement of one dominant force with another even more aggressive dominant force.
Foreign interference in support of one side of a domestic conflict and the use of power in this interference gave developments a negative aura. A number of countries did away with the Libyan regime by using air power in the name of humanitarian support. The revolting slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi – not just medieval but primeval – was the manifestation of these actions.
No one should be allowed to employ the Libyan scenario in Syria. The international community must work to achieve an internal Syrian reconciliation. It is important to achieve an early end to the violence no matter what the source, and to initiate a national dialogue – without preconditions or foreign interference and with due respect for the country’s sovereignty. This would create the conditions necessary to introduce the measures for democratization announced by the Syrian leadership. The key objective is to prevent an all-out civil war. Russian diplomacy has worked and will continue to work toward this end.
Sadder but wiser, we oppose the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions that may be interpreted as a signal to armed interference in Syria’s domestic development. Guided by this consistent approach in early February, Russia and China prevented the adoption of an ambiguous resolution that would have encouraged one side of this domestic conflict to resort to violence.
In this context and considering the extremely negative, almost hysterical reaction to the Russian-Chinese veto, I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.
The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous. No good can come of it. In any case, it will not help reach a settlement in a country that is going through a domestic conflict. Even worse, it further undermines the entire system of international security as well as the authority and key role of the UN. Let me recall that the right to veto is not some whim but an inalienable part of the world’s agreement that is registered in the UN Charter – incidentally, on U.S. insistence. The implication of this right is that decisions that raise the objection of even one permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot be well-grounded or effective.
I hope very much that the United States and other countries will consider this sad experience and will not pursue the use of power in Syria without UN Security Council sanctions. In general, I cannot understand what causes this itch for military intervention. Why isn’t there the patience to develop a well-considered, balanced and cooperative approach, all the more so since this approach was already taking shape in the form of the aforementioned Syrian resolution? It only lacked the demand that the armed opposition do the same as the government; in particular, withdraw military units and detachments from cities. The refusal to do so is cynical. If we want to protect civilians – and this is the main goal for Russia – we must make all the participants in the armed confrontation see reason.
And one more point. It appears that with the Arab Spring countries, as with Iraq, Russian companies are losing their decades-long positions in local commercial markets and are being deprived of large commercial contracts. The niches thus vacated are being filled by the economic operatives of the states that had a hand in the change of the ruling regime.
One could reasonably conclude that tragic events have been encouraged to a certain extent by someone’s interest in a re-division of the commercial market rather than a concern for human rights. Be that as it may, we cannot sit back watch all this with Olympian serenity. We intend to work with the new governments of the Arab countries in order to promptly restore our economic positions.
Generally, the current developments in the Arab world are, in many ways, instructive. They show that a striving to introduce democracy by use of power can produce – and often does produce -contradictory results. They can produce forces that rise from the bottom, including religious extremists, who will strive to change the very direction of a country’s development and the secular nature of a government.
Russia has always had good relations with the moderate representatives of Islam, whose world outlook was close to the traditions of Muslims in Russia. We are ready to develop these contacts further under the current conditions. We are interested in stepping up our political, trade and economic ties with all Arab countries, including those that, let me repeat, have gone through domestic upheaval. Moreover, I see real possibilities that will enable Russia to fully preserve its leading position in the Middle East, where we have always had many friends.
As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, to this day, the “magic recipe” that will produce a final settlement has not been invented. It would be unacceptable to give up on this issue. Considering our close ties with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Russian diplomacy will continue to work for the resumption of the peace process both on a bilateral basis and within the format of the Quartet on the Middle East, while coordinating its steps with the Arab League.
The Arab Spring has graphically demonstrated that world public opinion is being shaped by the most active use of advanced information and communications technology. It is possible to say that the Internet, social networks, cell phones, etc. have turned into an effective tool for the promotion of domestic and international policy on par with television. This new variable has come into play and gives us food for thought – how to continue developing the unique freedoms of communication via the Internet and at the same time reduce the risk of its being used by terrorists and other criminal elements.
The notion of “soft power” is being used increasingly often. This implies a matrix of tools and methods to reach foreign policy goals without the use of arms but by exerting information and other levers of influence. Regrettably, these methods are being used all too frequently to develop and provoke extremist, separatist and nationalistic attitudes, to manipulate the public and to conduct direct interference in the domestic policy of sovereign countries.
There must be a clear division between freedom of speech and normal political activity, on the one hand, and illegal instruments of “soft power,” on the other. The civilized work of non-governmental humanitarian and charity organizations deserves every support. This also applies to those who actively criticize the current authorities. However, the activities of “pseudo-NGOs” and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.
I’m referring to those cases where the activities of NGOs are not based on the interests (and resources) of local social groups but are funded and supported by outside forces. There are many agents of influence from big countries, international blocks or corporations. When they act in the open – this is simply a form of civilized lobbyism. Russia also uses such institutions – the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, International Humanitarian Cooperation, the Russkiy Mir Foundation and our leading universities who recruit talented students from abroad.
However, Russia does not use or fund national NGOs based in other countries or any foreign political organizations in the pursuit of its own interests. China, India and Brazil do not do this either. We believe that any influence on domestic policy and public attitude in other countries must be exerted in the open; in this way, those who wish to be of influence will do so responsibly.
New challenges and threats
Today, Iran is the focus of international attention. Needless to say, Russia is worried about the growing threat of a military strike against Iran. If this happens, the consequences will be disastrous. It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.
I am convinced that this issue must be settled exclusively by peaceful means. We propose recognizing Iran’s right to develop a civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium. But this must be done in exchange for putting all Iranian nuclear activity under reliable and comprehensive IAEA safeguards. If this is done, the sanctions against Iran, including the unilateral ones, must be rescinded. The West has shown too much willingness to “punish” certain countries. At any minor development it reaches for sanctions if not armed force. Let me remind you that we are not in the 19th century or even the 20th century now.
Developments around the Korean nuclear issue are no less serious. Violating the non-proliferation regime, Pyongyang openly claims the right to develop “the military atom” and has already conducted two nuclear tests. We cannot accept North Korea’s nuclear status. We have consistently advocated the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula – exclusively through political and diplomatic means — and the early resumption of Six-Party Talks.
However, it is evident that not all of our partners share this approach. I am convinced that today it is essential to be particularly careful. It would be inadvisable to try and test the strength of the new North Korean leader and provoke a rash countermeasure.
Allow me to recall that North Korea and Russia share a common border and we cannot choose our neighbors. We will continue conducting an active dialogue with the leaders of North Korea and developing good-neighborly relations with it, while at the same time trying to encourage Pyongyang to settle the nuclear issue. Obviously, it would be easier to do this if mutual trust is built up and the inter-Korean dialogue resumes on the peninsula.
All this fervor around the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea makes one wonder how the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation emerge and who is aggravating them. It seems that the more frequent cases of crude and even armed outside interference in the domestic affairs of countries may prompt authoritarian (and other) regimes to possess nuclear weapons. If I have the A-bomb in my pocket, nobody will touch me because it’s more trouble than it is worth. And those who don’t have the bomb might have to sit and wait for “humanitarian intervention.”
Whether we like it or not, foreign interference suggests this train of thought. This is why the number of threshold countries that are one step away from “military atom” technology, is growing rather than decreasing. Under these conditions, zones free of weapons of mass destruction are being established in different parts of the world and are becoming increasingly important. Russia has initiated the discussion of the parameters for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
It is essential to do everything we can to prevent any country from being tempted to get nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation campaigners must also change their conduct, especially those that are used to penalizing other countries by force, without letting the diplomats do their job. This was the case in Iraq – its problems have only become worse after an almost decade-long occupation.
If the incentives for becoming a nuclear power are finally eradicated, it will be possible to make the international non-proliferation regime universal and firmly based on existing treaties. This regime would allow all interested countries to fully enjoy the benefits of the “peaceful atom” under IAEA safeguards.
Russia would stand to gain much from this because we are actively operating in international markets, building new nuclear power plants based on safe, modern technology and taking part in the formation of multilateral nuclear enrichment centers and nuclear fuel banks.
The probable future of Afghanistan is alarming. We have supported the military operation on rendering international aid to that country. However, the NATO-led international military contingent has not met its objectives. The threats of terrorism and drug trafficking have not been reduced. Having announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, the United States has been building, both there and in neighboring countries, military bases without a clear-cut mandate, objectives or duration of operation. Understandably, this does not suit us.
Russia has obvious interests in Afghanistan and these interests are understandable. Afghanistan is our close neighbor and we have a stake in its stable and peaceful development. Most important, we want it to stop being the main source of the drug threat. Illegal drug trafficking has become one of the most urgent threats. It undermines the genetic bank of entire nations, while creating fertile soil for corruption and crime and is leading to the destabilization of Afghanistan. Far from declining, the production of Afghan drugs increased by almost 40% last year. Russia is being subjected to vicious heroin-related aggression that is doing tremendous damage to the health of our people.
The dimensions of the Afghan drug threat make it clear that it can only be overcome by a global effort with reliance on the United Nations and regional organizations – the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the CIS. We are willing to consider much greater participation in the relief operation for the Afghan people but only on the condition that the international contingent in Afghanistan acts with greater zeal and in our interests, that it will pursue the physical destruction of drug crops and underground laboratories.
Invigorated anti-drug measures inside Afghanistan must be accompanied by the reliable blocking of the routes of opiate transportation to external markets, financial flows and the supply of chemical substances used in heroin production. The goal is to build a comprehensive system of anti-drug security in the region. Russia will contribute to the effective cooperation of the international community for turning the tide in the war against the global drug threat.
It is hard to predict further developments in Afghanistan. Historical experience shows that foreign military presence has not brought it serenity. Only the Afghans can resolve their own problems. I see Russia’s role as follows – to help the Afghan people, with the active involvement of other neighboring countries, to develop a sustainable economy and enhance the ability of the national armed forces to counter the threats of terrorism and drug-related crime. We do not object to the process of national reconciliation being joined by participants of the armed opposition, including the Taliban, on condition they renounce violence, recognize the country’s Constitution and sever ties with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In principle, I believe it is possible to build a peaceful, stable, independent and neutral Afghan state.
The instability that has persisted for years and decades is creating a breeding ground for international terrorism that is universally recognized as one of the most dangerous challenges to the world community. I’d like to note that the crises zones that engender a terrorist threat are located near the Russian borders and are much close to us than to our European or American partners. The United Nations has adopted the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy but it seems that the struggle against this evil is conducted not under a common universal plan and not consistently but in a series of responses to the most urgent and barbarian manifestations of terror – when the public uproar over the impudent acts of terrorists grows out of proportion. The civilized world must not wait for tragedies like the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001 or another Beslan disaster and only then act collectively and resolutely after the shock of such cases.
I’m far from denying the results achieved in the war on international terror. There has been progress. In the last few years security services and the law-enforcement agencies of many countries have markedly upgraded their cooperation. But there is still the obvious potential for further anti-terrorist cooperation. Thus, double standards still exist and terrorists are perceived differently in different countries – some are “bad guys” and others are “not so bad.” Some forces are not averse to using the latter in political manipulation, for example, in shaking up objectionable ruling regimes.
All available public institutions – the media, religious associations, NGOs, the education system, science and business – must be used to prevent terrorism all over the world. We need a dialogue between religions and, on a broader plane, among civilizations. Russia has many religions, but we have never had religious wars. We could make a contribution to an international discussion on this issue.
The growing role of the Asia-Pacific Region
One of our country’s neighbors is China, a major hub of the global economy. It has become fashionable to opine about that country’s future role in the global economy and international affairs. Last year China moved into second place in the world in terms of GDP and it is poised to surpass the U.S. on that count, according to international – including American – experts. The overall might of the People’s Republic of China is growing, and that includes the ability to project power in various regions.
How should we conduct ourselves in the face of the rapidly strengthening Chinese factor?
First of all, I am convinced that China’s economic growth is by no means a threat, but a challenge that carries colossal potential for business cooperation – a chance to catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy. We should seek to more actively form new cooperative ties, combining the technological and productive capabilities of our two countries and tapping China’s potential – judiciously, of course – in order to develop the economy of Siberia and the Russian Far East.
Second, China’s conduct on the world stage gives no grounds to talk about its aspirations to dominance. The Chinese voice in the world is indeed growing ever more confident, and we welcome that, because Beijing shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order. We will continue to support each other in the international arena, to work together to solve acute regional and global problems, and to promote cooperation within the UN Security Council, BRICS, the SCO, the G20 and other multilateral forums.
And third, we have settled all the major political issues in our relations with China, including the critical border issue. Our nations have created a solid mechanism of bilateral ties, reinforced by legally binding documents. There is an unprecedentedly high level of trust between the leaders of our two countries. This enables us and the Chinese to act in the spirit of genuine partnership, rooted in pragmatism and respect for each other’s interests. The model of Russian-Chinese relations we have created has good prospects.
Of course, this is not to suggest that our relationship with China is problem-free. There are some sources of friction. Our commercial interests in third parties by no means always coincide, and we are not entirely satisfied with the emerging trade structure and the low level of mutual investments. We will also closely monitor immigration from the People’s Republic of China.
But my main premise is that Russia needs a prosperous and stable China, and I am convinced that China needs a strong and successful Russia.
Another rapidly growing Asian giant is India. Russia has traditionally enjoyed friendly relations with India, which the leaders of our two countries have classified as a privileged strategic partnership. Not only our countries but the entire multipolar system that is emerging in the world stands to gain from this partnership.
We see before our eyes not only the rise of China and India, but the growing weight of the entire Asia-Pacific Region. This has opened up new horizons for fruitful work within the framework of the Russian chairmanship of APEC. In September of this year we will host a meeting of its leaders in Vladivostok. We are actively preparing for it, creating modern infrastructure that will promote the further development of Siberia and the Russian Far East and enable our country to become more involved in the dynamic integration processes in the “new Asia.”
We will continue to prioritize our cooperation with our BRICS partners. That unique structure, created in 2006, is a striking symbol of the transition from a unipolar world to a more just world order. BRICS brings together five countries with a population of almost three billion people, the largest emerging economies, colossal labor and natural resources and huge domestic markets. With the addition of South Africa, BRICS acquired a truly global format, and it now accounts for more than 25% of world GDP.
We are still getting used to working together in this format. In particular, we have to coordinate better on foreign policy matters and work together more closely at the UN. But when BRICS is really up and running, its impact on the world economy and politics will be considerable.
In recent years, cooperation with the countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa has become a growing focus of Russian diplomacy and of our business community. In these regions there is still sincere goodwill toward Russia. One of the key tasks for the coming period, in my view, is cultivating trade and economic cooperation as well as joint projects in the fields of energy, infrastructure, investment, science and technology, banking and tourism.
The growing role of Asia, Latin America and Africa in the emerging democratic system of managing the global economy and global finance is reflected in the work of the G20. I believe that this association will soon become a strategically important tool not only for responding to crises, but for the long-term reform of the world’s financial and economic architecture. Russia will chair the G20 in 2013, and we must use this opportunity to better coordinate the work of the G20 and other multilateral structures, above all the G8 and, of course, the UN.
The Europe factor
Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans. We are by no means indifferent to developments in united Europe.
That is why Russia proposes moving toward the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean – a community referred by Russian experts to as “the Union of Europe,” which will strengthen Russia’s potential and position in its economic pivot toward the “new Asia.”
Against the background of the rise of China, India and other new economies, the financial and economic upheavals in Europe – formerly an oasis of stability and order – is particularly worrisome. The crisis that has struck the eurozone cannot but affect Russia’s interests, especially if one considers that the EU is our major foreign economic and trade partner. Likewise, it is clear that the prospects of the entire global economic structure depend heavily on the state of affairs in Europe.
Russia is actively participating in the international effort to support the ailing European economies, and is consistently working with its partners to formulate collective decisions under the auspices of the IMF. Russia is not opposed in principle to direct financial assistance in some cases.
At the same time I believe that external financial injections can only partially solve the problem. A true solution will require energetic, system-wide measures. European leaders face the task of effecting large-scale transformations that will fundamentally change many financial and economic mechanisms to ensure genuine budget discipline. We have a stake in ensuring a strong EU, as envisioned by Germany and France. It is in our interests to realize the enormous potential of the Russia-EU partnership.
The current level of cooperation between Russia and the European Union does not correspond to current global challenges, above all making our shared continent more competitive. I propose again that we work toward creating a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which will, in the future, evolve into a free trade zone and even more advanced forms of economic integration. The resulting common continental market would be worth trillions of euros. Does anyone doubt that this would be a wonderful development, and that it would meet the interests of both Russians and Europeans?
We must also consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent’s energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy.
The Third Energy Package, backed by the European Commission and aimed at squeezing out integrated Russian companies, is frankly not conducive to stronger relations between Russia and the EU. Considering the growing instability of energy suppliers that could act as an alternative to Russia, the package aggravates the systemic risks to the European energy sector and scares away potential investors in new infrastructure projects. Many European politicians have been critical of the package in their talks with me. We should summon the courage to remove this obstacle to mutually beneficial cooperation.
I believe that genuine partnership between Russia and the European Union is impossible as long as there are barriers that impede human and economic contacts, first and foremost visa requirements. The abolition of visas would give powerful impetus to real integration between Russia and the EU, and would help expand cultural and business ties, especially between medium-sized and small businesses. The threat to Europeans from Russian economic migrants is largely imagined. Our people have opportunities to put their abilities and skills to use in their own country, and these opportunities are becoming ever more numerous.
In December 2011 we agreed with the EU on “joint steps” toward a visa-free regime. They can and should be taken without delay. We should continue to actively pursue this goal.
Russian-American affairs
In recent years a good deal has been done to develop Russian-American relations. Even so, we have not managed to fundamentally change the matrix of our relations, which continue to ebb and flow. The instability of the partnership with America is due in part to the tenacity of some well-known stereotypes and phobias, particularly the perception of Russia on Capitol Hill. But the main problem is that bilateral political dialogue and cooperation do not rest on a solid economic foundation. The current level of bilateral trade falls far short of the potential of our economies. The same is true of mutual investments. We have yet to create a safety net that would protect our relations against ups and downs. We should work on this.
Nor is mutual understanding strengthened by regular U.S. attempts to engage in “political engineering,” including in regions that are traditionally important to us and during Russian elections.
As I’ve said before, U.S. plans to create a missile defense system in Europe give rise to legitimate fears in Russia. Why does that system worry us more than others? Because it affects the strategic nuclear deterrence forces that only Russia possesses in that theatre, and upsets the military-political balance established over decades.
The inseparable link between missile defense and strategic offensive weapons is reflected in the New START treaty signed in 2010. The treaty has come into effect and is working fairly well. It is a major foreign policy achievement. We are ready to consider various options for our joint agenda with the Americans in the field of arms control in the coming period. In this effort we must seek to balance our interests and renounce any attempts to gain one-sided advantages through negotiations.
In 2007, during a meeting with President Bush in Kennebunkport, I proposed a solution to the missile defense problem, which, if adopted, would have changed the customary character of Russian-American relations and opened up a positive path forward. Moreover, if we had managed to achieve a breakthrough on missile defense, this would have opened the floodgates for building a qualitatively new model of cooperation, similar to an alliance, in many other sensitive areas.
It was not to be. Perhaps it would be useful to look back at the transcripts of the talks in Kennebunkport. In recent years the Russian leadership has come forward with other proposals to resolve the dispute over missile defense. These proposals still stand.
I am loath to dismiss the possibility of reaching a compromise on missile defense. One would not like to see the deployment of the American system on a scale that would demand the implementation of our declared countermeasures.
I recently had a talk with Henry Kissinger. I meet with him regularly. I fully share this consummate professional’s thesis that close and trusting interactions between Moscow and Washington are particularly important in periods of international turbulence.
In general, we are prepared to make great strides in our relations with the U.S., to achieve a qualitative breakthrough, but on the condition that the Americans are guided by the principles of equal and mutually respectful partnership.
Economic diplomacy
In December of last year, Russia finally concluded its marathon accession to the WTO, which lasted for many years. I must mention that, in the finishing stretch, the Obama administration and the leaders of some major European states made a significant contribution to achieving the final accords.
To be honest, at times during this long and arduous journey we wanted to turn our backs on the talks and slam the door. But we did not succumb to emotion. As a result a compromise was reached that is quite acceptable for our country: we managed to defend the interests of Russian industrial and agricultural producers in the face of growing external competition. Our economic actors have gained substantial additional opportunities to enter world markets and uphold their rights there in a civilized manner. It is this, rather than the symbolism of Russia’s accession to the World Trade “club”, that I see as the main result of this process.
Russia will comply with WTO norms, as it meets all of its international obligations. Likewise, I hope that our partners will play according to the rules. Let me note in passing that we have already integrated WTO principles in the legal framework of the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Russia is still learning how to systematically and consistently promote its economic interests in the world. We have yet to learn, as many Western partners have, how to lobby for decisions that favor Russian business in foreign international forums. The challenges facing us in this area, given our priority of innovation-driven development, are very serious: to achieve equal standing for Russia in the modern system of global economic ties, and to minimize the risks arising from integration in the world economy, including Russia’s membership in the WTO and its forthcoming accession to the OECD.
We are badly in need of broader, non-discriminatory access to foreign markets. So far Russian economic actors have been getting a raw deal abroad. Restrictive trade and political measures are being taken against them, and technical barriers are being erected that put them at a disadvantage compared with their competitors.
The same holds for investments. We are trying to attract foreign capital to the Russian economy. We are opening up the most attractive areas of our economy to foreign investors, granting them access to the “juiciest morsels,” in particular, our fuel and energy complex. But our investors are not welcome abroad and are often pointedly brushed aside.
Examples abound. Take the story of Germany’s Opel, which Russian investors tried and failed to acquire despite the fact that the deal was approved by the German government and was positively received by German trade unions. Or take the outrageous examples of Russian businesses being denied their rights as investors after investing considerable resources in foreign assets. This is a frequent occurrence in Central and Eastern Europe.
All this leads to the conclusions that Russia must strengthen its political and diplomatic support for Russian entrepreneurs in foreign markets, and to provide more robust assistance to major, landmark business projects. Nor should we forget that Russia can employ identical response measures against those who resort to dishonest methods of competition.
The government and business associations should better coordinate their efforts in the foreign economic sphere, more aggressively promote the interests of Russian business and help it to open up new markets.
I would like to draw attention to another important factor that largely shapes the role and place of Russia in present-day and future political and economic alignments – the vast size of our country. Granted, we no longer occupy one-sixth of the Earth’s surface, but the Russian Federation is still the world’s largest nation with an unrivaled abundance of natural resources. I am referring not only to oil and gas, but also our forests, agricultural land and clean freshwater resources.
Russia’s territory is a source of its potential strength. In the past, our vast land mainly served as a buffer against foreign aggression. Now, given a sound economic strategy, they can become a very important foundation for increasing our competitiveness.
I would like to mention, in particular, the growing shortage of fresh water in the world. One can foresee in the near future the start of geopolitical competition for water resources and for the ability to produce water-intensive goods. When this time comes, Russia will have its trump card ready. We understand that we must use our natural wealth prudently and strategically.
Support for compatriots and Russian culture in the international context
Respect for one’s country is rooted, among other things, in its ability to protect the rights of its citizens abroad. We must never neglect the interests of the millions of Russian nationals who live and travel abroad on vacation or on business. I would like to stress that the Foreign Ministry and all diplomatic and consular agencies must be prepared to provide real support to our citizens around the clock. Diplomats must respond to conflicts between Russian nationals and local authorities, and to incidents and accidents in a prompt manner – before the media announces the news to the world.
We are determined to ensure that Latvian and Estonian authorities follow the numerous recommendations of reputable international organizations on observing generally accepted rights of ethnic minorities. We cannot tolerate the shameful status of “non-citizen.” How can we accept that, due to their status as non-citizens, one in six Latvian residents and one in thirteen Estonian residents are denied their fundamental political, electoral and socioeconomic rights and the ability to freely use Russian?
The recent referendum in Latvia on the status of the Russian language again demonstrated to the international community how acute this problem is. Over 300,000 non-citizens were once again barred from taking part in a referendum. Even more outrageous is the fact that the Latvian Central Electoral Commission refused to allow a delegation from the Russian Public Chamber to monitor the vote. Meanwhile, international organizations responsible for compliance with generally accepted democratic norms remain silent.
On the whole, we are dissatisfied with how the issue of human rights is handled globally. First, the United States and other Western states dominate and politicize the human rights agenda, using it as a means to exert pressure. At the same time, they are very sensitive and even intolerant to criticism. Second, the objects of human rights monitoring are chosen regardless of objective criteria but at the discretion of the states that have “privatized” the human rights agenda.
Russia has been the target of biased and aggressive criticism that, at times, exceeds all limits. When we are given constructive criticism, we welcome it and are ready to learn from it. But when we are subjected, again and again, to blanket criticisms in a persistent effort to influence our citizens, their attitudes, and our domestic affairs, it becomes clear that these attacks are not rooted in moral and democratic values.
Nobody should possess complete control over the sphere of human rights. Russia is a young democracy. More often than not, we are too humble and too willing to spare the self-regard of our more experienced partners. Still, we often have something to say, and no country has a perfect record on human rights and basic freedoms. Even the older democracies commit serious violations, and we should not look the other way. Obviously, this work should not be about trading insults. All sides stand to gain from a constructive discussion of human rights issues.
In late 2011, the Russian Foreign Ministry published its first report on the observance of human rights in other countries. I believe we should become more active in this area. This will facilitate broader and more equitable cooperation in the effort to solve humanitarian problems and promote fundamental democratic principles and human rights.
Of course, this is just one aspect of our efforts to promote our international and diplomatic activity and to foster an accurate image of Russia abroad. Admittedly, we have not seen great success here. When it comes to media influence, we are often outperformed. This is a separate and complex challenge that we must confront.
Russia has a great cultural heritage, recognized both in the West and the East. But we have yet to make a serious investment in our culture and its promotion around the world. The surge in global interest in ideas and culture, sparked by the merger of societies and economies in the global information network, provides new opportunities for Russia, with its proven talent for creating cultural objects.
Russia has a chance not only to preserve its culture but to use it as a powerful force for progress in international markets. The Russian language is spoken in nearly all the former Soviet republics and in a significant part of Eastern Europe. This is not about empire, but rather cultural progress. Exporting education and culture will help promote Russian goods, services and ideas; guns and imposing political regimes will not.
We must work to expand Russia’s educational and cultural presence in the world, especially in those countries where a substantial part of the population speaks or understands Russian.
We must discuss how we can derive the maximum benefit for Russia’s image from hosting large international events, including the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in 2012, the G20 summit in 2013 and the G8 summit in 2014, the Universiade in Kazan in 2013, the Winter Olympic Games in 2014, the IIHF World Championships in 2016, and the FIFA World Cup in 2018.
Russia intends to continue promoting its security and protecting its national interest by actively and constructively engaging in global politics and in efforts to solve global and regional problems. We are ready for mutually beneficial cooperation and open dialogue with all our foreign partners. We aim to understand and take into account the interests of our partners, and we ask that our own interests be respected.
This article was originally published in Moskovskiye Novosti (The Moscow News)
-
EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
EXCLUSIVE: LEAKED U.S. ARMY DOCUMENTS CONFIRM PRISON CAMPS ARE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR 2016; U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS ARE BEING TOLD TO PLAN TO FIGHT AMERICANS
U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS COMING – NOT A RECOVERY.
.
ISRAELI WARPLANES STRIKE TARGETS ON SYRIA-LEBANON BORDER AMID WEAPONS FEARS
.
ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015
.
URGENT: HILLARY CLINTON SIGNS UNITED NATIONS SMALL ARMS TREATY
WHITE HOUSE SETS GROUND RULES FOR LOCAL INTERVIEWS
UNITED NATIONS WARNS OF LOOMING WORLDWIDE FOOD CRISIS IN 2013
-
Pingback: NORTH KOREA SAYS IT WILL LAUNCH A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES | sreaves32
Pingback: NETANYAHU: IRAN CLOSER TO NUCLEAR ‘RED LINE’ | sreaves32
Pingback: PRESIDENT OBAMA: WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK IRAN OPENS IN JUNE 2013 | sreaves32
Pingback: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH SYRIAN PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASSAD | sreaves32
Pingback: THE BIG WALL STREET BANKS ARE ABOUT TO ENTER A DEATH SPIRAL; THE DERIVATIVES TSUNAMI AND THE DOLLAR BUBBLE | sreaves32
Pingback: CARDINAL JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO OF ARGENTINA ELECTED POPE, TAKES NAME POPE FRANCIS | sreaves32
Pingback: HOUSE BILL WANTS TO REPEAL OBAMA’S AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE | sreaves32
Pingback: CHRISTOPHER GREENE: CIVIL WAR IS FAST APPROACHING THE UNITED STATES | sreaves32
Pingback: IRAN: 2013 WILL BE THE ‘FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE’ | sreaves32
Pingback: AMERICA: A NATION OF SHEEP BEING LED TO SLAUGHTER? | sreaves32
Pingback: CHINESE NAVY CONDUCTS WEST PACIFIC LIVE-FIRE DRILL | sreaves32
Pingback: CHRISTOPHER GREENE: THE STATE OF TEXAS WILL BE THE FIRST STATE TO SUCCEED FROM THE UNION; 3 REASONS WHY TEXAS WANTS ITS GOLD BACK | sreaves32
Pingback: UNITED STATES STRUGGLING TO CONTAIN NUCLEAR THREATS FROM NORTH KOREA AND IRAN | sreaves32
Pingback: ISRAEL’S DEFENSE MINISTER INSPECTS GOLAN LINE…AL QAEDA NEARS TWO SYRIAN CHEMICAL DEPOTS | sreaves32
Pingback: sreaves32
Pingback: EURO-RUSSIAN-U.S. EXPERTS WARN OF NUCLEAR WAR THREAT | sreaves32
Pingback: SOUTH KOREA: NORTH KOREA MOVED MISSILE TO EAST COAST | sreaves32
Pingback: JAPAN HAS BEEN SUCKED INTO WORLD WAR III | sreaves32
Pingback: NORTH KOREA SETS APRIL 10 DEADLINE TO LAUNCH MISSILES…LOADS MISSILES ONTO LAUNCHERS…MOVES SECOND MISSILE TO THE EAST COAST…ALL EMBASSIES TOLD TO EVACUATE STAFF FROM PYONGYANG | sreaves32
Pingback: LAROUCHE MOVEMENT PUTS GLASS-STEAGALL IN INTERNATIONAL NEWS | sreaves32
Pingback: DOUG HAGMANN EXCLUSIVE REPORT: THE UNITED STATES IS PREPARING FOR PRE-EMPTIVE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST NORTH KOREA; KEY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS ADVISED TO STAY IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA FOR MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA; ACTION IMMINENT | sreaves32
Pingback: MSNBC HOST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY SAYS THAT YOUR CHILD IS NOT YOURS, ALL YOUR CHILDREN BELONG TO THE STATE | sreaves32
Pingback: DOUG HAGMANN EXCLUSIVE REPORT: THE UNITED STATES IS PREPARING FOR PRE-EMPTIVE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST NORTH KOREA; KEY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS ADVISED TO STAY IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA FOR MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA; ACTION IMMINENT | sreaves32
Pingback: U.S. NAVY DEPLOYING LASER WEAPON PROTOTYPE NEAR IRAN | sreaves32
Pingback: NORTH KOREA TO LAUNCH MISSILE APRIL 10, 2013 AFTER WARNING FOREIGNERS TO EVACUATE SOUTH | sreaves32
Pingback: sreaves32
Pingback: OBAMA TO PUSH SAUDI “DESTROY ISRAEL” PEACE PLAN | sreaves32
Pingback: RED ALERT: GUN VOTE APRIL 11, 2013 | sreaves32
Pingback: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SEEKS CONTROL OF ALL COMMERCIAL AMMUNITION | sreaves32
Pingback: BOSTON MARATHON: BOMBING DRILL COINCIDED WITH EXPLOSIONS; HUNT IS ON FOR PATRIOTS’ DAY BOMBER | sreaves32
Pingback: HAS OBAMA DESIGNATED INTERPOL AS HIS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL ARMY? | sreaves32
Pingback: AUSTRALIAN THINKTANK OUTLINES U.S. PLANS FOR WAR AGAINST CHINA | sreaves32
Pingback: POLICE AND MILITARY TOLD TO CHOOSE: GUN CONTROL OR THE U.S. CONSTITUTION | sreaves32
Pingback: THE TAKEDOWN OF AMERICA | sreaves32