Sunday, March 22, 2015

Why The Western Alliance Is Ending, Russian Crimea: One Year Later

The truth is elusive and hard to find these days, but when you find it, it's like a slap in the face. These first two articles reveal this, with information you will never find in the MSM:

[This article is worth reading in full, below are just the highlights...As they say, "read it and weep"]

Among the first to abandon Obama on this, right on Christmas Eve, was Viktor Orban, Hungary’s leader, who was outraged at Obama’s treatment of Hungary as if it were a vassal-state of the U.S. Empire.
Then, on 3 January 2015, Milos Zeman, the Czech head-of-state, joined with Orban in that.
Those countries had experienced Hitler’s horrors first-hand, and they don’t like nazis, not even ones (such as Obama) who speak liberal platitudes and have dark skins (and so arent’ a fit for the nazi stereotype — but only for the Big Lie extremity of nazism).
And, now, it seems to be the majority of the EU who are resisting Obama’s contemptuous treatment of every other nation than his or her own.
Then, on March 12th, Iceland terminated its candidacy for joining the EU. The EU’s rightward bend toward the U.S. seems to have been a big turn-off to Icelanders — they won’t touch even the EU.

Then, on March 17th, washingtonsblog bannered, “Major American Allies Ignore U.S. Pleas and Join China’s Alternative Bank” and reported that UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India, France, Germany, and Italy, had all agreed to join China’s newly-forming international-development bank competitor to Washington’s IMF and World Bank. China, ever since the U.S. had started its Ukrainian proxy-war against Russia, has sided with Russia, against that war; and what this international conflict is really about is the continuance of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve-currency: Russia, China, and the rest of the BRIC countries — the rising developing economies — are seeking to replace the dollar-monopoly.

The Obama Administration has been twisting arms all over the world to try to block nations from signing onto China’s new world bank; and Obama’s getting rebuffed by all these nations, many of which have been traditional U.S. allies, is a historic turn away from the American Empire that he is trying to ram down everyone’s throat.

And, on March 20th, zerohedge bannered, “US ‘Isolated’ As Key Ally Japan Considers Joining China-Led Bank.” If this happens, then the American Empire will be all but over.

...and, finally, at long last, the world-at-large is clearly telling this anti-FDR, aggressively imperialist, U.S.A., to just shove its fascism down its toilet. More and more nations are saying, in effect: Good-bye, Uncle Sam; you’re not the nation you were during World War Two; you’ve instead become the global enemy; you’ve turned and become fascist yourself.

Among the few parts of Obama’s international rhetoric that are not fake, and that (because they are part of his anti-Russian propaganda campaign) express his actual fascist imperialist views — and which are increasingly being rejected — are these:

Bragging about his foreign policy, including his killing the Russia-friendly Muammar Gaddafi: “Wherever we have been involved over the last several years, I think the outcome has been better because of American leadership. … We are hugely influential; we’re the one indispensable nation. But when it comes to nation-building, when it comes to what is going to be a generational project in a place like Libya or a place like Syria or a place like Iraq, we can help, but we can’t do it for them.” [He pretends the U.S. is a big international charity.]

His obsession to conquer Russia, as I reported it on 12 February 2015: “U.S. President Barack Obama’s just-issued National Security Strategy 2015 uses the term ‘aggression’ precisely 18 times, all but one of which are either explicitly, or else possibly, referring to Russia, as allegedly doing the alleged ‘aggression’ — never the U.S., and on only one occasion is he identifying North Korea with that term of opprobrium. Presumably, he thinks that Russia is by far the most ‘aggressive’ country. 

And there’s so much other icing on this bloody cake. For example, Russia’s Sputnik News headlined on March 20th, “South Stream: Life After Death?” and reported that the Obama regime was caught trying to instigate a coup to overthrow the current leader of Macedonia, who is balking against increasing sanctions on Russia, and who wants Macedonia to host a new pipeline for Russian gas into Europe. 

Obama and his stooges apparently think that they can get away with everything. And Republicans in the U.S. Congress complain not that he’s doing this, but instead that he’s not giving Ukraine enough weapons to do it.

And, all of this happened after Gallup international had polled 67,000 people in 65 countries in 2013 (and never again) on “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” and found that the U.S. crushed the ‘competition’ on that, with three times as many repondents identifying the U.S. as compared to the #2 nation, which was Pakistan. Russia wasn’t even listed in the news-reports (and the poll itself wasn’t made public), because the news-reports listed only the top six-mentioned nations, and Russia wasn’t among them. No doubt, this was one reason why Gallup yanked the question from their polling during 2014, especially after all of the international mayhem (including the coup in Ukraine) that the U.S. perpetrated last year.

So: EU leaders are finally getting the message — and even Japan and Australia are.

When George W. Bush put together a coalition of English-speaking countries to invade Iraq in 2003, nuclear weapons (other than the depleted uranium that we showered down upon Iraqis) weren’t an issue. Now, they definitely are. And, more and more, the world’s leaders are trying to dispense with “the one indispensable nation,” so that they (and everyone) won’t be dispensed with, themselves.

The U.S. has become a nut-hatchery, and the foreigners (especially the leaders in the ‘dispensable’ countries) are beginning to notice. Even America’s former friends are no longer amused.

NATO calls Crimea “invaded” and “occupied.” NATO has taught the world well what invasion and occupation really looks like, and Crimea isn’t it. In 2001, NATO invaded and began the occupation of the South-Central Asian country of Afghanistan. The invasion and occupation has left tens of thousands dead, many more displaced, and has resulted in continued chaos and violence up until and including present day. Throughout the conflict, revelations of abuses, mass murder, and other atrocities including systematic torture have been exposed, perpetrated by invading NATO forces and their Afghan collaborators.

The war has also resulted in the use of armed drone aircraft which regularly kill men, women, and children indiscriminately along the Afghan-Pakistani border – a campaign of mass murder ongoing for nearly as long as the conflict has raged.

In 2003, NATO-members joined the United States in the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. An estimated 1 million people would lose their lives, including thousands of Western troops. For nearly a decade the United State occupied Iraq, and during its attempts to prop up a suitable client regime, laid waste to the nation. American forces in their bid to exercise control over the Iraqi population would conduct sweeping assaults on entire cities. The city of Fallujah would be leveled nearly to the ground, twice.

This is what real invasions and occupations look like. The armed entrance into a nation, the absolute subjugation of all its people through maximum force – or as the US calls it “shock and awe” – and an occupation by gunpoint with tanks and troops in the streets of a people who do not want them there, and who are willing to fight and die to drive them out.

So when in March of 2014, Crimea was returned to Russia and NATO called the move an “invasion” and “occupation,” the world was reasonably concerned. Some were concerned because they equated the words “invasion” and “occupation” with the levels of mass murder and decimation associated with NATO’s decades of foreign interventions – believing that such violence was now unfolding in Crimea, this time at the hands of the Russians. Others were concerned because of the obvious falsehood within which NATO was framing events in Crimea.

NATO’s intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan ran into heavy resistance while Russia’s intervention in Crimea did not, because of several crucial differences. First, NATO was invading nations literally oceans away. The targets of their military aggression shared no common history with the West, no cultural, religious, or linguistic similarities, and surely no mutual contemporary shared interests. No significant party within either Iraq or Afghanistan asked the West to intervene beyond token proxies arranged by the West itself.Crimea on the other hand, had once existed as part of Russia. Many in Crimea identify themselves either as Russians, or of Russian descent. They speak Russian and observe Russian customs. Many in Crimea recognize that the soil beneath their feet has been soaked in Russian blood to defend it from aggression throughout history, including against the Nazis in World War 2.

When the government of Ukraine was violently overthrown by an overtly US-backed coup in Kiev, and many of the familiar symbols and movements that had in the past taken power with the help of Adolf Hitler in the 1940’s began stirring in western Ukraine again, turning to Russia for protection was only natural. Not only did the people of Crimea ask Russia to intervene, a referendum was held that overwhelmingly quantified their request.

Aside from storming several military bases and some tense moments in stand-off’s with Ukrainian troops, there was no violence when Russian forces began moving into Crimea

Life in Russian Crimea today is exceedingly normal. While a war rages on next door in Ukraine, the people of Crimea enjoy peace, stability, and a sense of unity and hope for the future. Even with economic setbacks delivered by NATO’s attempts to take the horrors they’ve created within Ukraine, and recreate them on the other side of the border in Russia, people are still able to conduct business more or less as they did before the conflict began. Some say the economy has actually improved despite the sanctions

Crimea is faring well, especially compared to neighboring Ukraine. Logistical networks will surely be restructured and markets will surely adjust. With the West desperately seeking to portray Crimea’s state one year after returning to Russia as dire as possible, that the best they can do is cite the disappearance of “McDonald’s” and “Apple” stores as “proof” that Crimea is “suffering,” bodes well for the Crimean people.

While NATO calls this an “invasion” and “occupation,” it is ironically NATO itself that has taught the world so well what a real invasion and occupation looks like, making their recent claims against Russia in Crimea ring particularly hollow. Also ironic is the fact that the NATO-backed regime in Kiev, Ukraine, is imposing upon its own people the conditions and horrors generally associated with a real invasion and occupation. That some call the conflict in Ukraine one of several “proxy wars” NATO is waging around the world, this should come as no surprise.

Washington looks to be throwing more than the full faith and credit of the US government behind Ukraine. On the heels of news that the US is set to guarantee a Ukrainian international bond issue (while Greek pensioners implicitly subsidize the country’s natural gas exports), NATO is in the midst of conducting large scale military maneuvers along the Russian border in a move Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says encourages “Kiev to pursue a military solution.” Over the course of 10 days, NATO will parade 120 combat vehicles across the region in an effort to prove how quickly the West can confront perceived Russian aggression. Here’s more from Military News:

The [Russian] ministry warned that it hopes Europe "does see the risk of unconditionally following advice from U.S. generals and will not opt for approaches that will rule out the risk of a slide towards a military confrontation between Russia and NATO."

While the U.S. Army acknowledges the convoy's movement is "a highly visible demonstration of U.S. commitment to its NATO allies," Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of U.S. Army Europe, insists "the focus should be on what is the desired end state, and can we get there using diplomatic and economic pressure and support."

So basically, the US is saying the following: “...although we’re intent on showing just how quickly we can deploy our forces in the event an armed confrontation becomes necessary, we hope you’ll see this for what it is which is our best effort demonstrate that we long for a peaceful solution.” We’ll let you judge for yourself how committed the West is to a peaceful resolution (note the US soldier teaching the small child how to fire a high caliber weapon): 

Meanwhile, US officials don’t understand why anyone would see this as hypocritical. As RT reports, the US State Department’s press official Jeff Rathe “would disagree” with the notion that the US is conductig precisely the types of exercises for which it has previsously condemned Russia: 

When asked why the US was condemning Russian exercises inside Russia, State Department press official Jeff Rathke told RT no such statement had ever been made.

While the US has not criticized every military drill conducted by the Kremlin, last August State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Russia’s aviation exercises are “provocative and only serve to escalate tensions.”

“Wouldn’t US and NATO maneuvers on Russian borders, at a time when the West and Russia are at odds over the crisis in Ukraine, also “raise tensions?” asked AP diplomatic correspondent Matt Lee.

“We would disagree with that,” replied Rathke.


It would certainly appear from the above that geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe are now running at a fever pitch and with Washington prone to adopting an extra defensive position thanks to what appear to be shifting economic alliances among its staunchest allies, we wouldn’t expect the posturing to die down on either side in the foreseeable future. 

We are rapidly approaching the March 31st deadline for the Iran nuclear negotiations. Yet while Iran makes few if any concessions, the P5+1 continues to make more and more concessions to the tyrants of Tehran.
Iran’s leaders keep openly and unabashedly threatening America and Israel with annihilation. Yet the Obama administration and the major world powers keep giving Iran what it wants. Under the current deal that’s being discussion, Iran does not have to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. It will still be allowed to enrich uranium. It does not have to disclose its nuclear weaponization efforts. It does not have to modify much less abandon its efforts to build ICBMs. And it will be given assurances that all economic sanctions will be removed from Iran in due time, and all nuclear inspectors will be removed, as well.
This is a dangerous road. The administration is playing with fire.
The President, the Secretary of State and their top advisors do not understand the apocalyptic, genocidal eschatology driving the leaders of the Iranian regime. Thus, they are engaging in a level of appeasement towards Tehran that would make Neville Chamberlain blush.
Here is the latest:

  • “Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for ‘Death to America’ on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a ‘historic opportunity’ for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord,” reports the Times of Israel.
  • “Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands,” the Times noted. “When the crowd started shouting, ‘Death to America,’ the ayatollah responded: ‘Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.'”
  • “’They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,’ he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. ‘What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,’ he said. ‘The politics of America is to create insecurity,’ he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.”
  • The Times noted that “Khamenei’s comments contrasted with those of Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who said ‘achieving a deal is possible’ by the March 31 target date for a preliminary accord.”
  • “Kerry was more circumspect, as he spoke to reporters after six days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne,” noted the article. “The talks, made ‘substantial progress,’ he said, but ‘important gaps remain….We have an opportunity to get this right,’ Kerry said, as he urged Iran to make ‘fundamental decisions’ that prove to the world it has no interest in atomic weapons.”

It is estimated that the Associated Press (AP) news content is seen by half the world’s population, according to the wire agency’s website. Yet even this most highly respected of news agencies used staged pictures and omitted information in a reckless attempt to paint Israel as a rogue nation indiscriminately slaughtering women and children during last year’s Gaza war.

For example, to the left is an emotionally stirring photo that provoked the world’s anger against Israel’s military operations against Hamas. It was picked up by more than 280 AP affiliates worldwide, 1,400 daily newspapers in America and thousands of TV and radio broadcast stations. 
AP now admits, after an investigation by The Mideast Reporter, that the picture is staged and that they were using children to pose for this and many other photographs they distributed about the war in Gaza.

There are strict rules prohibiting news agencies from staging pictures, especially using children, but the AP had no problem breaking those rules while assuring their subscribers, customers and audience that their photos tell the unbiased truth.
Staged photographs are in direct violation of even AP’s own statement of News Values and Principles: “We don’t stage or re-enact events for the camera or microphone. We do not ask people to pose for photos unless we are making a portrait and then we clearly state that in the caption.”
This photo is certainly not a portrait, but a powerful piece of anti-Israel propaganda designed to stir condemnation of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Nor did the original caption tell anyone that this picture was staged. 
What the caption did state was even more deceptive. “The attack killed his father, a Hamas policeman.” The sign in Arabic reads, “House of martyr Mostafa Jamal Malakeh.”
But Malakeh was no “policeman.” He was a well-known Hamas militant. He was the local commander of the “Al-Zeitoun Battalions” of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. This is the same group that had fired more than 8,000 rockets into Israel since 2005. 
All of this is public information and can be seen on a YouTube video memorializing Malakeh. The AP chose to ignore these well known facts in reporting on Malakeh’s death in order to make it sound as though Israeli soldiers had killed a civilian policeman.
This is but one of many examples of late that have made clear that it is impossible to rely on the mainstream international media for a clear picture of the situation in Israel.

Also see:

No comments: