Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Germany Building EU Army, New Chinese Missiles To Reach U.S., NATO 'Baiting' Russia Into War?

Germany Is Building A European Army Before Your Eyes

The Dutch army is made up of three brigades, plus support staff and Special Forces. On June 12, one of those brigades, the 11th Airmobile, officially joined the German army.
This was the first time ever that European country has handed part of its army over to another country. “Never before has a state renounced this elementary and integral part of its sovereignty,” wrote Die Welt’s political editor Thorsten Jungholt.
“The hour has come, finally, for concrete steps towards a European Army.”
— Chairman of the German Parlaiment’s Defence Committee Hans-Peter Bartels
Now, Germany is making it clear that this was not an isolated event. Instead, it is a pattern Germany intends to follow as it absorbs more units from foreign militaries. “Germany is driving the European Army Project” was the title of Jungholt’s Die Welt article.
This subject has received little attention in the Netherlands, but think about what is happening here. The Dutch army also includes Special Forces and support staff, so it is not quite accurate to say that two thirds of the Dutch army would be under German control, but certainly a very large part of it would be. This is no small experiment simply to pay lip service to the idea of multinational cooperation. This is the Netherlands signing the heart and core of its army over to Germany.
All this is in addition to extensive training and cooperation that already goes on between the two armed forces.
Kasdorf wrote that Germany wanted to employ the Dutch model in cooperation with other nations. “The bilateral cooperation with Austria and Poland is currently gaining much momentum,” he wrote.
In Austria, this cooperation is mainly in the form of “mountain-specific” activities, he continued, but “a more intensive … cooperation … in a form similar to the Netherlands” is being considered with Poland. The two nations have agreed “to study the exchange of units/organizations,” wrote Kasdorf.
These nations already train and exercise together often. Could we see Polish battalions joining the German army soon? Last year the two nations signed a naval agreement to train together and cooperate in the Baltic Sea. In the wake of the Ukrainian crisis, there may soon be more.

Hans-Peter Bartels, the chairman of the German parliament’s defense committee and the recipient of Kasdorf’s letter, left no doubt as to the final destination of all these additions. “The hour has come, finally, for concrete steps towards a European Army,” he told Die Welt.
Germany’s Defense Minister Ursela von der Leyen has a similar goal. “Today we embark a new era of integration,” she said as the Dutch Airmobile brigade official joined the German Army back in June. “This cooperation will continue and even intensify. Our new partnership can also be seen as a model for Europe and its common security and defense policy,” she announced.
Is his letter, General Kasdorf wrote that Germany is a “driver and a pioneer” when it comes to international cooperation between armed forces.
“Something is sprouting in Germany,” wrote Jan Techau, director of the Think Tank Carnegie Europe. “As Europeans ponder the necessity of military strength after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and natocharts its course for the post-Afghanistan era, Europe’s reluctant central power is doing some serious soul-searching on its role as a military player.”

“Only months ago, Berlin would have categorically ruled out such a step,” continued Techau. “Now, Germany has put itself firmly at the center of a substantial nato compromise that is addressed, of course, at Moscow. This is not a revolution in Germany’s military posture, but it is substantial progress.”
Germany is once again a major power in the world and now, with the help of its neighbors, it is on the road to become a major military power. The cooperation Germany has initiated with the Netherlands could become a template for all of Europe—and now with added urgency provided by Russia. For more on how Germany is pushing for Europe’s militaries to come together, read our article “Under Construction.”

China's new CSS-20 ballistic missile could take out all US military facilities in the Western Pacific, claims the Kanwa Defense Review operated by Andrei Chang, also known as Pinkov, a military analyst based in Canada.
The primary mission of the CSS-20, designed to carry out China's Anti Access and Area Denial strategy, is to strike at ground targets instead of aircraft carriers or other warships, the report said. The missile even has the range to hit Elmendorf Air Force Base and Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, some 5,000 kilometers from mainland China, the report said.
Other targets for the People's Liberation Army in a potential conflict with the United States would be Guam in the Western Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Kanwa said the development of CSS-20 missile comes in response to the Asia Pivot strategy of the Obama administration. The article said the missile would undergo modifications in the future to make it more difficult for US radar stations and air defense system in Alaska to pick up.

Russia is consistently portrayed in the Western media as the “aggressor”amid the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, however, it is clear through overt moves by NATO’s proxy regime in Kiev, that attempts are being made to intentionally provoke, not defend against Moscow’s ire.
The New York Times, in a recent article admits that the military campaign Kiev is carrying out against its own citizens in eastern Ukraine is overt brutality carried out by literal flag-waving Nazis, with the all but stated goal of provoking a Russian invasion.

The New York Times in an article titled, “Ukraine Strategy Bets on Restraint by Russia,” states:

Buoyed by successes against the separatists over the past two months — and noting that the Russians have threatened an invasion in the region before without following through — Ukrainian commanders have pressed ahead with an offensive to drive the rebels from their stronghold in Donetsk in the east. 

The army continued to fire artillery into the city nightly, and paramilitary groups raided outlying villages despite warnings from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he could intervene at any time to protect Ukrainians who favor closer ties with his country. And the Ukrainians have flaunted their victories.

Shelling populated centers and raiding villages far from its tenuous base of support, does not appear to be Kiev “defending itself,” nor in line with the “international norms” frequently cited by Washington, London, and Brussels when justifying “humanitarian interventions” elsewhere throughout the world. The NYT also notes that Russia “threatened” to intervene amid Kiev’s brutality, but never did – calling into question the notion that Russia is being “aggressive.”

The NYT continues, with what appears to be language designed to provoke Russia into crossing its border with Ukraine to intervene:

But Western leaders and analysts remain unconvinced Mr. Putin will be willing to be taunted endlessly or to permit extensive deaths of pro-Russian civilians. The United Nations said recently that at least 1,543 civilians and combatants on both sides have died since mid-April.
And in this statement, the NYT admits that indeed the Banderite Nazis NATO is aiding, funding, and soon to be training and arming , are carrying out a campaign of brutality causing “extensive deaths of pro-Russian civilians.”

Nazis and Western Complicity  

The NYT also explicitly admits that Nazis line the ranks of the “militias” fighting for NATO’s regime in Kiev, and carrying out this campaign of provocation:

Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag. 

While the NYT attempts to cast as an ambiguous light as possible upon the connections Azov has with Nazism, the Azov Battalion does not simply fly a “neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag.” The symbol is in fact the Wolfsangel used by Adolf Hitler’s various SS military divisions during World War II and is as good as saluting Hitler himself to affirm allegiance to his toxic ideology and to celebrate the Nazis’ numerous, notorious atrocities.

The BBC would elaborate on the nature of militias like “Azov,” who are undoubtedly the recipients of US, British, and other NATO member states’ aid, cash, and political support, in its article, “Ukraine conflict: ‘White power’ warrior from Sweden.” In it, it profiles a member of Azov Battalion, Mikael Skillt, and states:

“I have at least three purposes in the Azov Battalion: I am a commander of a small reconnaissance unit, I am also a sniper, and sometimes I work as a special coordinator for clearing houses and going into civilian areas.”
As to his political views, Mr Skillt prefers to call himself a nationalist, but in fact his views are typical of a neo-Nazi.

Dismissed by the West as “Russian propaganda,” it is clear that even the most “Western” media outlets cannot report on the Ukrainian conflict without coming across literal Nazis fighting for Kiev and operating in “civilian areas” in eastern Ukraine. The BBC would admit the Azov Battalion is far from a fringe group and was raised by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry itself. When NATO members announce “aid” to the regime in Kiev, they are also, by default, announcing aid to literal Neo-Nazi militant groups raised by Kiev’s Interior Ministry, like the Azov Battalion. 

While the NYT notes that Russia has thus far not taken the bait, “experts” it interviewed for its story claim such patience is not likely to last. In reality, Moscow has weighed its strengths, weaknesses, and the strategic lay of not only Ukraine, but the region and the world, and has made the decision that will, in the long-term based on reason, produce the best outcome for Russia, the Russian people, and its compatriots beyond its borders.
While the West continues its attempts to manipulate the public and the political circles intersecting amid the Ukrainian crisis, Moscow has already proven it will not take the bait unless it is sure it can swallow the fisherman as well.

Portugal has crashed into deep deflation and Italy’s inflation rate has fallen to zero as the eurozone flirts with recession, automatically pushing these countries further towards a debt compound spiral.
The slide comes amid signs of a deepening slowdown in the eurozone core, with even Germany flirting with possible recession. Germany’s ZEW index of investor confidence plunged from 27.1 to 8.6 in July, the sharpest fall since June 2012, during the European sovereign debt crisis. “The European Central Bank has to act now,” said Andrew Roberts, credit chief at RBS.
"Momentum really stalled in May and June,” said Hans Redeker, the bank’s currency chief. “It is very difficult to keep recovery going in the eurozone without credit. Companies are just eating up their cash flow.”

For Italy, it is already becoming a fresh crisis. The country is caught in a vice, squeezed by a triple-dip recession and zero inflation at the same time. Italy’s €2.1 trillion public debt is rising on a shrinking base of nominal GDP despite austerity policies. The debt ratio has surged five percentage points to 135.6pc of GDP over the past year, despite austerity.
Portugal is close behind. Its debt has jumped from 127.4pc to 132.9pc, and is certain to move higher after the recovery collapsed earlier this year. There are growing concerns that the Portuguese state will end up footing the bill for the rescue of Banco Espirito Santo after senior bondholders were protected. Deflation is pushing both nations into a textbook debt trap.

Mudar Zahran, a Palestinian-Jordanian journalist, activist and voice for many Palestinian Arabs living in the Hashemite Kingdom and elsewhere says the Gaza war has reinforced for most that electing and supporting Hamas was a bad idea.
“Not a single Gazan that I spoke to was not against Hamas,” said Zahran, who came to the “West Bank” to cover the conflict in and around the Gaza Strip.
“Come on, do you guys think we are animals? That we would love seeing Hamas terrorists hiding among our crowds just to have Israeli F–16’s bomb us so we can get the sympathy?” he asked in an interview with JerusalemOnline. “Please understand, yes, Gaza elected Hamas, but people make mistakes. Didn’t the Germans elect Hitler? Were the Germans still in favor of Hitler when Russia and the Allies were marching into Berlin and bombing the hell out of it?”

“We have to be clear; Palestinians hate Israel,” Zahran reminded his Israeli readers. “This might change in thirty years or so, but they hate Israel. So Gazans hate Israel, but for sure and I can authoritatively say this, they hate Hamas even more now.”

Israel, the United States and the European Union have all dismissed a UN commission of inquiry into possible war crimes committed during the Gaza war as little more than a sideshow with a foregone conclusion.
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Monday named a three-man panel to investigate allegations of Israeli war crimes during the Jewish state’s month-long battle against Gaza’s terrorist infrastructure.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the committee amounted to a “kangaroo court” whose findings were “predetermined.” This, the Israelis insisted, was made all the more clear when the UN decided to name Canadian Prof. William Schabas (pictured) to head the panel.
Schabas has previously called for the prosecution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former President Shimon Peres for alleged war crimes, and asserted that past Israeli offenses against the Gaza terrorists (in 2009 and 2012) were more severe than any other crisis taking place in the world.
Naming Schabas to the panel “proves beyond any doubt that Israel cannot expect justice from such a body,” a Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement read.

The European Union (EU) had already voiced its discontent weeks earlier when the UNHRC voted to establish the commission. The resolution ultimately accepted by the UNHRC was “unbalanced, inaccurate and prejudges the outcome of the investigation,” read an EU statement.
Also named to the panel was British human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin, best known worldwide for being the fiancé of Hollywood actor George Clooney. Critics accused the UN of trying to score publicity points by choosing Alamuddin, who later declined the invitation, citing a heavy workload.

When observers describe or denounce Israeli military actions as "disproportionate," they glibly assume sweeping legal conclusions without sufficient proof or analysis. But the evidence shows that Israel has acted with disproportionate decency while Hamas has committed war crimes.
The principle of distinction requires belligerents to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Hamas' violations of this principle amount to a double war crime: first by targeting Israeli civilians, and second by using Gazan civilians as human shields for these attacks, thereby making it much harder for the IDF military response to distinguish Gazan combatants from noncombatants.
Hamas exhorts Gazans to act as human shields and its combat manual encourages this war crime while admitting that Israel avoids civilian casualties – an avoidance that Hamas exploits for tactical advantage. Alan Dershowitz deftly highlights yet another proof of Hamas war crimes: Hamas chooses to locate its military efforts in the most densely populated parts of Gaza, instead of in the far less populated areas nearby – a decision calculated to maximize Gazan civilian deaths. Cynically breaking all rules, Hamas even uses ambulances to transport fighters and converts Gaza's hospitals into command centers, weapons depots, and rocket-launch sites.
As of August 9, Israel's military has attacked about 5,000 targets in Gaza (4,762 during the first 29 days of Operation Protective Edge and a few hundred since) resulting in 1,915 deaths (according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health). Even if this total were accurate and represented entirely civilian deaths, the strike-to-kill ratio absurdly implies that Israel's military needs about 2.5 attacks to kill one person.
But if Israel's goal were just to kill Gazans, it could kill well over 1,915 with a single airstrike. Why spend so much on intelligence gathering and precision-guided bombs (or force Israeli citizens to endure so many costly weeks of war) when the IDF could raze half of Gaza in an hour? The fact that the IDF has struck so many times with so few casualties shows the extent of its restraint and precision while destroying the terrorist infrastructure threatening Israelis.
Israel has made extraordinary efforts to minimize civilian casualties – despite Hamas' plan to maximize them. Israel aborts airstrikes that will result in excessive civilian casualtieswarns civilians to clear areas that will be targeted, and loses ground troops in densely populated areas like Shejaiya to avoid airstrikes that would kill far more Gaza civilians. Israel chose not to target Gaza City's main Shifa Hospital, even though it knew that Hamas leaders were cynically hiding there and an airstrike could have substantially harmed Hamas' military leadership.

As this article explains, Israel sacrifices blood and treasure to minimize harm to Gaza civilians. And yet somehow Israel is still accused of deliberately targeting civilians even when Hamas' misfired rockets are responsible or when an IDF mistake happens. But as Colonel Richard Kemp argues, "mistakes and malfunctions happen in all fighting armies and in all conflicts…Do those who condemn the killing of Palestinian civilians as deliberate acts by the IDF suggest that…incidents in Gaza [in which the IDF accidentally kills Israeli soldiers] are also intentional?"

Some of the same media outlets that rushed to portray Israel as using disproportionate force have belatedly acknowledged that fighting-age men are vastly overrepresented among Gaza's dead, strengthening Israel's claims all along that it has done its best to target combatants and avoid civilians.

Israel's restraint is all the more remarkable given the genocidal intent of its enemy, as clearly stated in the preamble to Hamas' covenant and demonstrated by Hamas' genocidal missile attacks on Israel's nuclear reactor (for more on Hamas' genocidal plans, see this article by Jeffrey Goldberg). Would the US military be as careful as Israel has been to avoid civilian casualties when confronting an enemy trying to kill millions of Americans and destroy the US?

Last week, British police reported a disturbing and significant rise in anti-Semitic attacks on local Jews since the start of the latest conflict in Gaza.
“Figures seen by the BBC show recorded hate crimes against Jewish people living in London have doubled compared with the same period last year, while police in Manchester said they had seen an increase in anti-Semitic crime over the last month,” the BBC reported.
In totally unrelated news, the British government revealed on Tuesday that they are suffering from a terminal case of moral equivalency and are prepared to cut off military aid to Israel if “significant hostilities” resume in Gaza.
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, and Skills and Liberal Democrat MP Vince Cable announced this week that the United Kingdom would suspend the export licenses of 12 British firms which send Israel arms like radar systems, aircraft, and tanks if any new hostilities in Gaza restart.

The Huffington Post U.K. reported that the British left is incensed by how “weak” this move is against Israel. Presumably, they would prefer that the government retroactively suspend arms trades to Israel and request that Israel send back any arms which they have acquired from British firms.
Fellow Lib Dem and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently expressed his support for an anti-Israel arms embargo saying that the Jewish state had “overstepped the mark” in its prosecution of the conflict with Hamas in Gaza.
Here is a brief review of the extensive lengths to which the IDF goes to avoid civilian casualties – rule of engagement to which neither the British nor the American armed forces would agree to be bound.

Hostilities have resumed on several occasions in Gaza after reports indicated that Hamas militants violated the terms of a number of temporary ceasefire agreements. On August 8, Hamas rocket fire into Israel shattered a tense peace. Another 72-hour cease fire which went into effect on August 1 lasted just 90 minutes before Hamas militants killed three IDF soldiers who were clearing and dismantling a tunnel network (as per the terms of that ceasefire).
None of this matter much, however, when your position is not logical but guided by emotion and reflex. And the reflex in Europe, it seems, is to lurch toward the abhorrent anti-Semitism which characterized the mid-20th Century.
If there was ever a sound argument against the necessity of a free and viable Jewish state, Europe is refuting it on a daily basis.

Also see:

No comments: