Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

As Our Past Wars Are Glorified This Memorial Day Weekend, Give Some Thought To Our Prospects Against The Russians And Chinese In World War III

Paul Craig Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, Associate Editor for the Wall Street Journal, and Senior Research Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.  A former economics professor, Dr. Roberts is listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world.  His website is PaulCraigRoberts.org.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/as-our-past-wars-are-glorified-this-memorial-day-weekend-give-some-thought-to-our-prospects-against-the-russians-and-chinese-in-world-war-iii.html

The Saker reports that Russia is preparing for World War III, not because Russia intends to initiate aggression but because Russia is alarmed by the hubris and arrogance of the West, by the demonization of Russia, by provocative military actions by the West, by American interference in the Russian province of Chechnya and in former Russian provinces of Ukraine and Georgia, and by the absence of any restraint from Western Europe on Washington’s ability to foment war. http://thesaker.is/how-russia-is-preparing-for-wwiii/
Like Steven Starr, Stephen Cohen, myself, and a small number of others, the Saker understands the reckless irresponsibility of convincing Russia that the United States intends to attack her.
It is extraordinary to see the confidence that many Americans place in their military’s ability. After 15 years the US has been unable to defeat a few lightly armed Taliban, and after 13 years the situation in Iraq remains out of control. This is not very reassuring for the prospect of taking on Russia, much less the strategic alliance between Russia and China. The US could not even defeat China, a Third World country at the time, in Korea 60 years ago.
Americans need to pay attention to the fact that “their” government is a collection of crazed stupid fools likely to bring vaporization to the United States and all of Europe.

Russian weapons systems are far superior to American ones. American weapons are produced by private companies for the purpose of making vast profits. The capability of the weapons is not the main concern. There are endless cost overruns that raise the price of US weapons into outer space. The F-35 fighter, which is less capable than the F-15 it is supposed to replace, costs between $148 million and $337 million per fighter, depending on whether it is an Air Force, Marine Corps, or Navy model. http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html
A helmet for a F-35 pilot costs $400,000, more than a high end Ferrari. http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/26/f-35-helmet-costs-400000-4-times-predecessor/73826180/
(Washington forces or bribes hapless Denmark into purchasing useless and costly F-35: http://sputniknews.com/news/20160528/1040395012/denmark-f-35-military-nato-lockheed.html)
It is entirely possible that the world is being led to destruction by nothing more than the greed of the US military-security complex. Delighted that the reckless and stupid Obama regime has resurrected the Cold War, thus providing a more convincing “enemy” than the hoax terrorist one, the “Russian threat” has been restored to its 20th century role of providing a justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, social services, and the US economy dry in behalf of profits for armament manufacturers.
However, this time Washington’s rhetoric accompanying the revived Cold War is far more reckless and dangerous, as are Washington’s actions, than during the real Cold War. Previous US presidents worked to defuse tensions. The Obama regime has inflated tensions with lies and reckless provocations, which makes it far more likely that the new Cold War will turn hot. If Killary gains the White House, the world is unlikely to survive her first term.
All of America’s wars except the first—the war for independence—were wars for Empire. Keep that fact in mind as you hear the Memorial Day bloviations about the brave men and women who served our country in its times of peril. The United States has never been in peril, but Washington has delivered peril to numerous other countries in its pursuit of hegemony over others.
Today for the first time in its history the US faces peril as a result of Washington’s attempts to assert hegemony over Russia and China.
Russia and China are not impressed by Washington’s arrogance, hubris, and stupidity. Moreover, these two countries are not the native American Plains Indians, who were starved into submission by the Union Army’s slaughter of the buffalo.
They are not the tired Spain of 1898 from whom Washington stole Cuba and the Philippines and called the theft a “liberation.”
They are not small Japan whose limited resources were spread over the vastness of the Pacific and Asia.
They are not Germany already defeated by the Red Army before Washington came to the war.
They are not Granada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, or the various Latin American countries that General Smedley Butler said the US Marines made safe for “the United Fruit Company” and “some lousy bank investment.”
An insouciant American population preoccupied with selfies and delusions of military prowess, while its crazed government picks a fight with Russia and China, has no future.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Russia signs contracts worth $950mn to rebuild Syria

© Ammar Abdullah
Damascus and Moscow have signed nearly a billion dollars worth of agreements to rebuild war-torn Syria, according to the Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi. The two countries intend to develop energy, trade, finance and other sectors of the economy.
"The Russian side has responded to the idea of restoring [Syrian] infrastructure. Therefore, a lot of deals were signed, including $675 million and $280 million agreements," said the Syrian prime minister.
According to al-Halqi, more than 60 percent of the power stations in Syria are shut down and need fuel to restart.
“Despite all the things Syria has undergone, it has managed to maintain the infrastructure. However, the production of electricity depends on fuel, and the oil sector has been more affected by terrorism than the electricity sector," said the prime minister.
Syria has offered Russia a chance to participate in exploring and developing oil and gas on land and offshore. In particular, Russia was invited to upgrade the Baniyas refinery and construct a refinery with Iran and Venezuela.
Damascus is also ready to discuss payment in national currencies with Russia. At the moment, Syria is negotiating a free trade zone with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, if the treaty is signed and trade reaches a certain level, Damascus will then begin to pay in local currency.
Al-Halqi added Syria and Russia intend to open a bank to facilitate transfers between the countries. The bank would be controlled 50-50 by the countries’ central banks.
As for trade, Syria is interested in promoting Russian goods in the Middle East. “Syria has geographical advantages, making it capable of becoming a developed commercial and industrial center for Russian companies in Middle East markets," said al-Halqi.
Speaking about Syrian exports to Russia, he said that in the first quarter of 2016 Syria sold more goods to Russia than in all of 2015

Monday, April 25, 2016

For The First Time US Deploys Two F-22 Raptors Close To Russia To "Deter Aggression" (name the real aggressor!)

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-25/first-time-us-deploys-two-f-22-raptors-close-russia-deter-aggression
Tensions are rapidly escalating between the US and Russia following last week two fly-bys when first a Russian Su-24 "buzzed" the US missile destroyer USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea, and just days later flew within 50 feet of a US recon plane also flying over the Baltic Sea, which some interpreted as a Russian warning to Poland. The U.S. quickly responded and complained vocally to Russia (even if Obama did not mention the incident during his phone call with Putin immediately following the incident).


Russia, in turn, promptly responded by accusing the United States last Wednesday of intimidation by sailing a U.S. naval destroyer close to Russia's border in the Baltics and warned that the Russian military would respond with "all necessary measures" to any future incidents.
Speaking after a meeting between NATO envoys and Russia, their first in almost two years, Moscow's ambassador to NATO said the April 11 maritime incident showed there could be no improvement in ties until the U.S.-led alliance withdrew from Russia's borders.
"This is about attempts to exercise military pressure on Russia," the envoy, Alexander Grushko, said. "We will take all necessary measures, precautions, to compensate for these attempts to use military force," he told reporters.
Then, immediately following Russia's abrupt response, it was the US' turn, and as we reported over the weekend, Barack Obama's nominee as the next NATO and U.S. European Command commander, Army Gen. Curtis M. "Mike" Scaparrotti , said on Thursday that Russia should be warned that its dangerous flybys of U.S. ships and planes could be met by force.
"Sir, I believe that should be known -- yes," Scaparrotti said when asked by Sen. John McCain whether Russia should be told that the U.S. would take action if American lives were endangered.
Pursuing the same line of questioning, Sen. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat, asked Scaparrotti whether the Russians should be told that "next time it doesn't end well for you."
The general responded that "we should engage them and make clear what's acceptable. Once we make that known, we have to enforce it. "I think they're pushing the envelope in terms of our resolve," Scaparrotti added. "It's absolutely reckless, it's unjustified and it's dangerous." As NATO commander, he said one of his first actions would be to review the rules of engagement for U.S. and allied forces in the region.
And just to make sure Russia has another "free option" at reckless behavior, earlier today the U.S. Air Force flew in two F-22 Raptor fighter jets to Romania as a show of strength to deter Russian intervention in Ukraine.

Two F-22 Raptor fighter jets, Photo: Reuters
“For the first time in Romania, the next-generation combat aircraft F-22 Raptor, part of the US Air Force Europe mission, arrived today at Mihail Kogalniceanu military base,” the US Embassy said on its Facebook page Monday.
The fighter jets landed at the Mihail Kogalniceanu air base, near the Black Sea port of Constanta in southeast Romania, located less than 400km from the Russian military stronghold of Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. A U.S. statement says they possess sophisticated sensors allowing the pilot to track, identify, shoot and kill air-to-air threats before being detected. The fighters also have a significant capability to attack surface targets.
"These aircraft have the ability to project air dominance quickly, at great distances, to defeat any possible threat," Lt. Gen. Timothy Ray, 3rd Air Force commander, said in a release.
This is not the first time the US has sent its most modern stealth fighters to Europe: in August, the Air Force deployed four F-22s to Europe for the first time ever as part of the ERI. The fighters traveled to Germany, and also forward deployed with A-10s to Estonia, coming close to Russia's borders.
In recent months, the service has been using the F-22 often, "heavily tasked to do missions worldwide," Gorenc said of the August deployment and the F-22's role in Syria against the Islamic State group.
This was, however, the largest and closest to Russia deployment yet of the multirole fighter to the continent, officials said, a move meant to "bolster the security of NATO allies and partners in Europe" while showcasing its flexibility to fly throughout the region as well as to deter from further "Russian aggression."
What it is really meant to do is send a signal to Russia following last week's "flybys" to not do it again. Naturally, Russia will again interpret this move as merely the latest provocation - after all the US would not be delighted if Russia was sending ultramodern fighter planes to a nation located a few hundred miles away from the maindland - thereby making the likelihood of another close encounter even greater.

Romanian Air Force chief of staff Maj. Gen. Laurian Anastasof voiced concerns about Russia's presence in the region. He said that if a Russian plane took off from an air base in Crimea and went 100 kilometers (62 miles) beyond Crimea's borders "that can trigger worries of the (NATO) alliance."
Anastasof said that if an unidentified aircraft comes within 20 miles (32 kilometers) of Romania's airspace, NATO'S procedure "obliges us to scramble planes up in the air, a scenario that had already happened four times this year." He said no Russian plane had come close to Romania's airspace.
The U.S. fighter jets, which arrived from Britain, will leave Romania later Monday. They are part of the Operation Atlantic Resolve, a U.S. commitment to NATO's collective security and regional stability.
The Raptors deployed to RAF Lakenheath, England, earlier this month, and will continue training in Europe until May. Their mission is funded through the European Reassurance Initiative — a Pentagon effort designed to allay European partners' fears about Russian aggression in the region.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Crude Slides After Russia Warns Of Production Increase: "Was Never Ready To Cut Output"

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-20/crude-slides-after-russia-warns-production-increase-was-never-ready-cut-output
Perhaps upset at the weekend's development, Russia has decided to rattle the global crude complex cage. Amid hopes of a freeze, Russia's energy minister Alexander Novak has reversed course and stated that Russia could "in theory" increase oil output and "was never ready to cut production." It appears things are rapidly breaking down between Russia and The Kingdom - which perhaps explains Obama's rapidly arranged trip to kiss the ring in Riyadh.


The oil market is not transparent enough, which leads to the demand-supply mismatch, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Arkady:
"The policy of certain countries regarding diversification of energy sources aimed at supporting local production is sometimes implemented inefficiently as it creates extra costs for consumers and changes the oil and gas market balance. From our viewpoint, the situation is not transparent enough as not the whole information is provided to consumers," he said.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

CIA ‘Plan B’ for Syria would give rebels MANPADs to 'counter Russia' - report

© Reuters
A covert ‘Plan B’ for Syria reserved for a “violation of ceasefire” is being pushed to the US president, anonymous officials told media. Arming “moderate” Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft weapons to fight the “Russia-backed regime” is again on the table.
Back in February, the Wall Street Journal first reported that President Barack Obama’s senior military and intelligence advisers were insisting that a back-up plan is necessary to “counter Russia” in Syria.
The fresh details obtained by the WSJ suggest the CIA has given “provisional assurances” to coalition members to expand support to Syrian armed opposition groups fighting troops of President Bashar Assad. Still, the White House reserved the right to define which weapons systems are to be introduced to the battlefield – if the truce fails and full-scale fighting resumes.
On the eve of the ceasefire agreement coming into effect in Syria at midnight on February 27, the heads of Middle East intelligence agencies met to lay out a plan for waging war after the truce. And consultations on the matter never stopped ever since.
Today Washington and its allies, such as Ankara and Riyadh, are discussing which weapon systems are to be delivered to “vetted” Syrian rebels under this secret program, the WSJ reports.
Experts agree that what the anti-government forces in Syria need the most are electronic means to ensure effective suppression of President Bashar Assad’s artillery batteries and take down fighter jets. For the latter purpose, man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADs) are on the table, with Turkey and Saudi Arabia eager to supply them to the Syrian rebels.
The WSJ claims that US officials have conveyed a “private message” to their Russian counterparts that a return to full-scale fighting could “end up putting more Russian pilots in danger.”
The rebels have already obtained a “small number” of MANPADs “through illicit channels,” the CIA hints, thus posing danger to civil aircrafts. The CIA is now busy preventing more MANPADs from “slipping uncontrollably” into the war zone.
"If the ceasefire collapses, if the negotiations don’t go anywhere, and we’re back to full throttle civil war, all bets will be off,” the WSJ cited a senior Obama administration official as saying in a message to Moscow. “The outside patrons will double and triple down, throwing everything they can into Syria, including much more lethal weaponry.”
Actually, the “full-scale fighting” the US warns of never ended in Syria, at least against some parties in the conflict: no armistice was signed with terrorist groups like Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front.
Since the beginning of the ceasefire six weeks ago, dozens of local rebel groups throughout Syria joined the truce or even teamed up with the government forces against the terrorists. The armed formations that opted to side with terrorists are being bombed by Russian and Syrian air forces.
In the given conditions, the question about who would announce that the ceasefire has been violated remains open. Just as soon it could be voiced at the upcoming peace talks between Damascus and opposition groups that are set to resume this week in Geneva.
In the meantime, Washington’s Arab allies suggested high tech means to limit MANPADs’ operability by fitting them with “geographical sensors” to prevent them from being used outside designated areas, but the US remained silent to the proposal. Instead, Washington has been reportedly pressing main sponsors of the Syrian armed rebels, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to use their influence to order the Syrian rebels to abide by the ceasefire.
The CIA’s covert program to provide the Syrian anti-government forces with “limited supplies” of small arms and ammunition was launched in 2013 and has been growing steadily. A year later, the CIA was already providing rebels with antitank TOW missiles today actively used on the battlefield against Assad troops and eventually rescue groups of the Russian task force deployed to Syria.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

The Coming Collapse Of Saudi Arabia

Tyler Durden's picture


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-10/coming-collapse-saudi-arabia
They met in secret to plan a devastating attack...
Two powerful men, colluding at a palace in the Middle East.
In September 2014, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Saudi Arabia. He was there to meet with King Abdullah, the country’s ruler and one of the richest men in the world.
Informed observers say Kerry and Abdullah drew up a plan at this meeting to destroy their common enemies: Russia and Iran.
To carry out the attack, they wouldn’t use fighter jets, tanks and ground troops. They would use a much more powerful weapon…
Oil.
Oil is the world’s most traded commodity. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter. It has arguably more control over the price of oil than any other country does.
Insiders say Saudi Arabia agreed to flood the oil market at this secret meeting. The purpose was to drive down the price of oil. This would hurt Russia’s and Iran’s economies. They both depend heavily on oil sales.
They wanted to hurt Russia for supporting their regional foe, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They wanted to hurt Iran for the same reason. Iran is the Saudis’ fierce geopolitical rival in the region.
Their strategy has had some success.
As you can see in the chart below, the price of oil has plummeted over 70% since John Kerry’s secret meeting with King Abdullah in September 2014.
There’s so much conflict in the Middle East—but oil prices are falling.
And despite China’s economic slowdown…it still imported more oil in 2015 than in 2014. China is the world’s number two oil consumer behind the U.S.
Turmoil plus demand says oil should be going up, not down. But the mystery is explained by the Saudis’ oil war and their strategy of flooding the market to bankrupt competitors.

Saudi Arabia’s Other Target

The Saudis have also declared war on the U.S. shale oil industry.
In the 1990s, the U.S. imported close to 25% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Today—because of high U.S. shale oil production—we import only 5%.
By keeping the market saturated with oil, the Saudis are driving down the price. They hope to drive it down low enough and long enough to bankrupt the shale industry…since shale oil costs more than Saudi oil to produce.
This would knock out a major competitor and let the Saudis regain lost market share.
But economic warfare doesn’t always go according to plan. I think the Saudis made a colossal mistake…

Impaled on Their Own Sword

I think the Saudis have overplayed their hand...big time.
Oil makes up 90% of Saudi government revenue. So the price drop has been very painful. They’re bleeding through their reserves.
The market is putting more pressure on their currency peg than at any time in its history.
For over 30 years, Saudi Arabia has pegged its currency at 3.75 riyals per U.S. dollar. To maintain this, it needs a large stash of U.S. dollars. With its historically large reserves, this has never been a problem.
But now, the Saudi budget is under serious pressure. The government is only staying afloat by draining its foreign exchange reserves. This threatens Saudi Arabia’s ability to support its currency peg.
If the currency peg breaks—which is exactly what the current market expects—the riyal would be devalued. This would increase the cost of living for Saudis across the board.
It would also increase social unrest.
The Saudis are also losing billions underwriting foolhardy wars in Yemen and Syria.
The Saudis thought they could support armed Syrian rebels and topple the Assad government in a matter of months. They figured Assad would fall just as easily as Gadhafi did in Libya in 2011. It was a gross miscalculation.
There’s also the Saudi war in Yemen, Saudi Arabia’s southern neighbor.
The Saudis launched the war in March 2015. They wanted to reinstate a Saudi-friendly government. The Saudis thought the intervention would last a few months, then they’d declare “mission accomplished” and go home. That’s not what happened.
The political and economic stars are aligning against the Saudis. It’s their most vulnerable moment since the kingdom was founded in 1932.

Crisis Investing 101

The Saudis are having some success. In the past year, at least 67 U.S. oil companies have filed for bankruptcy. Analysts estimate as many as 150 could follow. The shale oil industry is in “survival mode.”
And the crisis in the oil market could spread. That’s because many banks made big loans to these distressed shale oil companies. A wave of bankruptcies means those loans could go bad, which would be a huge threat to those banks.
It has the potential to trigger another meltdown in the financial system. The warning signs are there.
I wouldn’t own any bank that has big exposure to risky shale plays...nor keep my life savings there.
The Saudis have damaged the U.S. shale oil industry. And they’ll continue to cause more damage. But they won’t bankrupt every producer.
The shale industry has more staying power than Saudi Arabia. Some producers now say they’re profitable with $40 oil. And their pace of innovation will drive that even lower. The industry will survive.
All the Saudis have done is create an existential crisis for themselves.
If the Saudis don’t stop flooding the market—and there are no signs they will—they won’t be shooting themselves in the foot... but in the head. Saudi Arabia will either collapse or surrender—and stop flooding the market.
Either way, oil will eventually go a lot higher.

Monday, March 7, 2016

Will Russia End Up Controlling 73% of Global Oil Supply?

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-07/will-russia-end-controlling-73-global-oil-supply
Submitted by Rakesh Upadhyay via OilPrice.com,
Russia has played a master stroke in the current oil crisis by taking the lead in forming a new cartel, but it’s a move that could spell geopolitical disaster.
The meeting between Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela on 16 February 2016 was the first step. During the next meeting in mid-March, which is with a larger group of participants, if Russia manages to build a consensus—however small—it will further strengthen its leadership position.
Until the current oil crisis, Saudi Arabia called the crude oil price shots; however, its clout has been weakening in the aftermath of the massive price drop with the emergence of US shale. The smaller OPEC nations have been calling for a production cut to support prices, but the last OPEC meeting in December 2015 ended without any agreement.
Now, with Russia stepping in to negotiate with OPEC nations, a new picture is emerging. With its military might, Russia can assume de facto leadership of the oil-producing nations in the name of stabilizing oil prices.
Saudi Arabia has been a long-time U.S. ally, but that, too, is changing. Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Riyadh, recently noted that “We've seen a long deterioration in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and it started well before the Obama Administration.”
U.S.-Saudi relations further soured due to the Iran nuclear deal that ended in January with the U.S. lifting sanctions—a move the Saudis vehemently opposed. The Saudis had to look for a new ally to safeguard their interests in the Gulf, considering the threats they face from the Islamic State (ISIS) and Iran. Though both Russia and Saudi Arabia are on opposing ends in Syria, with Russia supporting Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and the Saudis supporting the Sunni rebels, the large drop in prices seems to have opened a window of opportunity for Russia to ally with Saudi Arabia.
This is not the first time that Russia and Saudi Arabia have sought a close partnership. Even in 2013, The Telegraph had reported an attempt to form a secret deal, which did not go through. Iran has been a trusted ally of Russia for a long time, and if Russia can broker a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, it can also push through some sort of secret OPEC deal.
The production freeze to January levels that was bandied about last month carries no significance in concrete terms because Russia, Saudi Arabia and most other nations on board are pumping close to their record highs. Barclays’ commodity research chief Kevin Norrish said it was “vital to note” that there was not much incremental production expected from Russia, Qatar or Venezuela this year anyway. It was the Saudi’s that really mattered, as reported by Forbes.
Though Iran hasn’t committed to a production freeze, since it wants to ramp up production to pre-sanction levels, Russian Energy Minister Aleksander Novak has noted that "Iran has a special situation as the country is at its lowest levels of production. So I think, it might be approached individually, with a separate solution."
With all the major Gulf nations agreeing, Iraq, which is without a credible political leadership, will also likely follow suit if Russia assures them of stronger support against ISIS.
If the above scenario plays out, Russia will emerge as the de facto leader of the major oil producing nations of the world, accounting for almost 73 percent of the global oil supply.
Along with this, Russia has been in the forefront of plans to move away from Petrodollars, and Moscow has formed pacts with various nations to trade oil in local currencies. With this new cartel of ROPEC (Russia and OPEC nations), a move away from petrodollars will become a reality sooner rather than later.
Russia is smart. Vladimir Putin is genius. Moscow senses the opportunity that is almost tangibly floating about in the low crude price environment and appears to be ready to capitalize on it in a way that would reshape the geopolitical landscape exponentially.
Though a solution in Syria is welcome, a large cartel of major oil producing nations of the world with Russia as the head would be a major upset to the current balance of power. With this potential in mind, the mid-march meeting should be very interesting for the global oil patch—well beyond talk of production cuts and supply gluts.

Friday, February 26, 2016

America’s Aristocracy Facing Resistance from American Public Regarding Russia

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
On February 20th, the anti-Russian propaganda site “Newsweek” headlined “How We Can Defeat Putin,” and presented an essay from Evelyn Farcas, of the NATO-generated Atlantic Council, but didn’t indicate her being controlled by the same people who control NATO (the U.S. aristocracy). (Newsweek hid her connection to NATO — gave no indication of it.)
NATO is run by the North Atlantic Council, and its main PR agencies are the Atlantic Council and the Atlantic Treaty Association, both of which receive funding from international corporations. The head of the Atlantic Council is billionaire Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former U.S. Presidential candidate, and a member of the Bilderberg organization, which was founded in 1954 to engineer a takeover of national governments’ regulatory abilities and a replacement of national economic regulations by international economic treaties, which will supersede any national authority and will not be answerable to any voters except the controlling stockholders in international corporations. (Bilderberger David Rockefeller then created the Trilateral Commission in 1974, to extend the globally controlling aristocracy to include also Japanese aristocrats, and Huntsman is also a member of that Bilderberg spin-off: he’s a member of the Trilateral Commission’s ruling Executive Committee.) The list of donors to the Atlantic Council includes: Lockheed Martin Corporation, the Kingdom of Bahrain (ruled by a fundamentalist-Sunni royal family who are friends of the Saud family that rules Saudi Arabia), the (far-right) Smith Richardson Foundation, Google, Raytheon, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Thompson Reuters, (the far-right) Ukrainian World Congress, Bank of America, City of London, ExxonMobil, General Electric, PriceWaterhouse, Frontera Resources, Blackstone Group, United Technologies, Bank of Tokyo, Barclays Capital, ConocoPhillips, Gulf Keystone Petroleum, Microsoft, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. State Department, Bloomberg LP, Embassy of Latvia; and three donors who each contributed over a million dollars to the Atlantic Council during 2014: Adrienne Arsht (who sold her bank to Banco Popular Español), Bahaa Hariri (the billionaire “eldest son of slain Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri” — the “Lebanese-Saudi business tycoon” who had been a famous assassinated enemy of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad), and United Arab Emirates (whose six royal families are friends of the Saud royal family and all of whom are among the top funders of jihadist movements; and, according to a U.S. State Department cable, “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, including Hamas.”). Saudi Arabia is the world’s top purchaser of U.S. weapons, but isn’t directly represented at the Atlantic Council. They buy enough U.S.-made weapons, so they provide far more financial support to NATO than do any of those others. However, that same State Department cable also said, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” So: outfits such as Al Qaeda are well-represented in NATO — and at the Atlantic Council, and the much smaller Atlantic Treaty Association.

Farkas’s propaganda-piece (written specifically for the Atlantic Council) opened: “Russia poses a geostrategic threat to the United States and our interests. Indeed, earlier this month Defense Secretary Ash Carter listed it first among the threats faced by our nation.” She continued: “The Kremlin’s objectives are clear: 1) Retain Vladimir Putin’s position as the leader of the Russian Federation, preserving the autocratic political system and mafia-style crony economy that together make up ‘Putinism’; 2) restore Russia’s status as a great power; 3) rewrite the international rules and norms to prevent intervention in states to protect citizens; 4) maintain political control of Russia’s geographical periphery; and, if possible, 5) break NATO, the European Union and trans-Atlantic unity.”
One could turn that around against the United States by saying that we Americans have a less personalized, more institutionalized, form of dictatorship, which doesn’t require continuance of the same person to be in control, but which provides foreign policies that extend little changed from one President to the next, even if the rhetoric differs considerably between individual Presidents, such as it did and does from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, with little real difference in policies except this: tortures such as waterboarding might possibly now be actually forbidden here. However, Putin’s international policies have been changing far more than that. (They changed a lot after Obama overthrew the democratically elected and pro-Russian President of Ukraine in February 2014 and instituted a rabidly anti-Russian fascist regime there.)
Domestically, Obama continued Bush’s Wall Street bailouts and reduced the prosecutions of white-collar crooks (and also of higher-level “financial fraud”), even lower than was the situation when Bush was the nominal President. Also, the prosecutions of government corruption declined under Obama. This was not the type of “change” that Obama’s voters had been voting for, but it’s what we got. 
The readers of Ms. Farkas’s propaganda-article, if one judges by the reader-comments there, were far less damning against Mr. Putin than they were against the con-job that had just been delivered to them by Newsweek (and so perhaps that ‘news’-site’s constant ads seeking new subscribers to the site are not producing nearly as much income as are the propaganda-services Newsweek delivers on behalf of their international-corporate advertisers). To read those comments from readers, Americans are getting jaundice from reading America’s propagandistic ‘press.’ Here were two typical such comments:
“I have been reading and watching western media and russian media equally. There is no bad guy here in geopolitics. If there is then its the US.”
Another said:
“Meanwhile Putin plays chess Americans play checkers. and the Americans(Obama) are sold as chess players(at least they make themselves believe it) to start with..Now they have propaganda outlets like this one, that want to sell you a ‘checkers’ play to win the game.”
Of course, such cynicism is also widespread among Russians, against their own nation’s media.
The Newsweek propagandist wrote in her article: “We must be united with our allies and partners worldwide and resolute toward Russian bad behavior.” But, what about America’s “bad behavior”: unjustified and catastrophic invasion and destruction of Iraq in 2003, of Libya in 2011, and of Syria in 2013, and Obama’s keeping in power the coup-regime in Honduras that was installed there on 28 June 2009? That’s not very nice, either — and, unlike anything that can be charged against Russia, there’s no NATO-like organization against the United States to have provoked our invasions, as there is with regard to Russia, which had long ago terminated its equivalent, the Warsaw Pact (in 1991). They disbanded theirs; we continued and still continue ours, even though its alleged raison d’être  likewise ended in 1991 (and NATO and its propaganda-arms now drown us with propaganda such as Newsweek published here). Clearly, the U.S. is the international aggressor, par excellence, and it needs propagandists — the U.S. press — in order to make the American public fear “Saddam’s WMD” (to invade Iraq in 2003) and “Russian bad behavior” (to attempt a “color revolution” against Russia’s leader, Putin, whose approval-rating among his people is nearly twice as high as Obama’s own — and yet America calls itself a ‘democracy’ that brings ‘democracy’ to places such as Ukraine, Libya, Syria, and Russia).
More and more Americans are learning that they’re suckers if they pay  for their ’news’ — if they pay their hard-earned money in order to be manipulated by their insatiable corrupting aristocracy. And now, with google Chrome’s free autotranslate feature, one can receive the news from the media in every country, immediately translated into English, and thereby get a read not only on America’s propaganda but on that of the countries that the U.S. aristocracy want Americans to overthrow (in overthrows that are becoming a very bad habit of this country, and that drain America’s tax dollars for rotten weaponry and a bloated army but enrich the ‘defense’ contractors that our aristocrats invest so heavily in, so as to conquer the lands they don’t currently control). Americans are increasingly coming to recognize that they’ve been (and are being) had: by ‘their’ government and by ‘their’ ‘free press,’ if not by the aristocracy that controls them both.  
—————

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The REAL Goal of America and Israel: Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces

Balkanizing the Middle East

The hawks in the U.S. and Israel decided long ago to break up Iraq and Syria into small fragments.
The Guardian noted in 2003:
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region,” he said.
***
They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak and the [Pentagon] hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad. The hawks, though, believe it would be good.
For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.
***
The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”.
Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”

***
The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.
With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by “weaning” the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them”, the paper concluded.
***
The leader of the “prominent opinion makers” who wrote it was Richard Perle – now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon.
Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy.
***
Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy, August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security.
A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith.
***
With several of the “Clean Break” paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to “transcend” its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.
(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people – including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the “Project for a New American Century”.)
Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut – writes:
[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.
***
One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.
***
The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.
***
Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.
In short … divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.
To those—and I suspect there are still many out there—for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial, I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:
a) the “Clean Break” manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996
and
b) the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper generated by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of  George Bush Junior to the White House, to the most exclusive  sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.
To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents—which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel’s “strategic environment” and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US “forward bases” in the region ….
To do so now, after the US’s systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya—two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history—, and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media’s deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.
And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.
Antiwar’s Justin Raimondo notes:
Iraq’s fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I pointed out again and again in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states: the Shi’ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest, and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion. This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.
***
As I put it years ago:
“[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again.
“When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn’t just militarily defeat Iraq’s armed forces – we dismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roads, bridges, electrical plants, water facilities, museums, schools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.
“… What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized.”
Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?
The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America’s expense – at every opportunity. In “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to “break out” of Israel’s alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of “regime change” across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one’s still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic “victory” in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these “rogue states” – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party’s target list.
(Indeed.)
And Michel Chossudovsky points out:
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.
What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the elimination of Iraq as a country.
This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)

Breaking Apart Syria

Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate nation.
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry allegedly wrote a book expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units …. Dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated:
Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria ….
As Michel Chossudovsky points out:
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas said:
Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.
Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of the Iraq war – John Bolton – said:
The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That’s what ISIS has been able to take advantage of.
I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical Islamists. What’s left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the ayatollahs in Tehran. It’s not anything we should try to aid.
In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said that he has “a tough time” seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign nations.
Dan Sanchez noted last week:
In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize. Better to divide and conquer than to countenance a “rogue” (independent) neighbor.
So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are making it plain that Plan A (“Assad Must Go”) is not happening any time soon.
And SecState John Kerry confirmed just yesterday that “Plan B” is to break Syria up into different states.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Russia's Trap: Luring Sunnis Into War

Tyler Durden's picture

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-16/russias-trap-luring-sunnis-war
Submitted by Burak Bekdil via The Gatestone Institute,
  • Washington should think more than twice about allowing Turkey and Saudi Arabia, its Sunni allies, militarily to engage their Shiite enemies in Syria. Allowing Sunni supremacists into a deeper sectarian war is not a rational way to block Russian expansion in the eastern Mediterranean. And it certainly will not serve America's interests.
  • Turkey and Saudi Arabia are too weak militarily to damage Russia's interests. It is a Russian trap -- and precisely what the Russians are hoping their enemies will fall into.
After Russia's increasingly bold military engagement in war-torn Syria in favor of President Bashar al-Assad and the Shiite bloc, the regional Sunni powers -- Turkey and its ally, Saudi Arabia -- have felt nervous and incapable of influencing the civil war in favor of the many Islamist groups fighting Assad's forces.
Most recently, the Turks and Saudis, after weeks of negotiations, decided to flex their muscles and join forces to engage a higher-intensity war in the Syrian theater. This is dangerous for the West. It risks provoking further Russian and Iranian involvement in Syria, and sparking a NATO-Russia confrontation.
After Turkey, citing violation of its airspace, shot down a Russian Su-24 military jet on Nov. 24, Russia has used the incident as a pretext to reinforce its military deployments in Syria and bomb the "moderate Islamists." Those are the Islamists who fight Assad's forces and are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Russian move included installing the advanced S-400 long-range air and anti-missile defense systems.
Fearing that the new player in the game could vitally damage their plans to install a Sunni regime in Damascus, Turkey and Saudi Arabia now say they are ready to challenge the bloc consisting of Assad's forces, Russia, and Shiite militants from Iran and Lebanon.
As always, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu spoke in a way that forcefully reminded Turkey-watchers of the well-known phrase: Turkey's bark is worse than its bite. "No one," he said on Feb. 9, "should forget how the Soviet forces, which were a mighty, super force during the Cold War and entered Afghanistan, then left Afghanistan in a servile situation. Those who entered Syria today will also leave Syria in a servile way." In other words, Davutoglu was telling the Russians: Get out of Syria; we are coming in. The Russians did not even reply. They just kept on bombing.

Will direct military involvement in Syria by Turkey and Saudi Arabia spark a NATO-Russia confrontation? Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (then prime minister), meeting in Istanbul on December 3, 2012. (Image source:kremlin.ru)
Turkey keeps threatening to increase its military role in Syria. Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan pledged that Turkey will no longer be in a "defensive position" over maintaining its national security interests amid developments in Syria. "Can any team," he said, "play defensively at all times but still win a match? ... You can win nothing by playing defensively and you can lose whatever you have. There is a very dynamic situation in the region and one has to read this situation properly. One should end up withdrawn because of concerns and fears."
Is NATO member Turkey going to war in order to fulfill its Sunni sectarian objectives? And are its Saudi allies joining in? If the Sunni allies are not bluffing, they are already giving signals of what may eventually turn into a new bloody chapter in the sectarian proxy war in Syria.
First, Saudi Arabia announced that it was sending fighter jets to the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, where U.S. and other allied aircraft have been hitting Islamic State strongholds inside Syria. Saudi military officials said that their warplanes would intensify aerial operations in Syria.
Second, and more worryingly, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Turkey and Saudi Arabia could engage in ground operations inside Syria. He also said that the two countries had long been weighing a cross-border operation into Syria -- with the pretext of fighting Islamic State, but in fact hoping to bolster the Sunni groups fighting against the Shiite bloc -- but they have not yet made a decision.
In contrast, Saudi officials look more certain about a military intervention. A Saudi brigadier-general said that a joint Turkish-Saudi ground operation in Syria was being planned. He even said that Turkish and Saudi military experts would meet in the coming days to finalize "the details, the task force and the role to be played by each country."
In Damascus, the Syrian regime said that any ground operation inside Syria's sovereign borders would "amount to aggression that must be resisted."
It should be alarming for the West if Turkey and Saudi Arabia, two important U.S. allies, have decided to fight a strange cocktail of enemies on Syrian territory, including Syrian forces, radical jihadists, various Shiite forces and, most critically, Russia -- all in order to support "moderate" Islamists. That may be the opening of a worse disaster in Syria, possibly spanning over the next 10 to 15 years.
The new Sunni adventurism will likely force Iran to augment its military engagement in Syria. It will create new tensions between Turkey-Saudi Arabia and Iraq's Shiite-dominated government. It may also spread and destabilize other Middle Eastern theaters, where the Sunni bloc, consisting of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, may have to engage in new proxy wars with the Shiite bloc plus Russia.
Washington should think more than twice about allowing its Sunni allies militarily to engage their Shiite enemies. This may be a war with no winners but plenty of casualties and collateral damage. Allowing Sunni supremacists into a deeper sectarian war is not a rational way to block Russian expansion in the eastern Mediterranean. And it certainly will not serve America's interests.
Turkey with Saudi Arabia are too weak militarily to damage Russia's interests. It is a Russian trap -- and precisely what the Russians are hoping their enemies will fall into.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Russia bans American corn and soybeans

© Jim Young
Starting February 15, corn and soybeans from the US will no longer be welcome in Russia, announced the country's food and safety watchdog on Wednesday. Rosselkhoznadzor says American producers have failed to meet Russian biological standards.
"Since the products shipped from the United States pose a real threat to Russia, and the US guarantees are not valid, we reserve the right to introduce temporary restrictions on imports of US corn and soybeans," said Rosselkhoznadzor spokesman Aleksey Alekseenko.
The watchdog has found dry rot in corn and numerous weed seeds in soybeans, he added.
US officials said the assessment of corn is done without checking microbiological conditions.

"We were dumfounded. Every batch of products should come with a microbiological certificate that guarantees food safety. It turns out the products are not being tested,” said Alekseenko.
In 2015, the watchdog found 64 cases of bacterial contamination in US soybeans. In January 2016, it found four additional cases of bacterial contamination, including a bacteria non-existent in Russia.
The US exported 300,000 tons of soybeans to Russia from January to October last year.
The possible cost of the quarantined goods sent to Russia is 15 billion rubles ($188 million), according to the watchdog.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

1-minute video: US military, State Dept ‘leadership’ lie about Russia invading NATO, laugh at media asking for evidence. What US agency will have the honor to arrest these .01% War Criminals?

Posted on  by Carl Herman

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.”  –unsourced, and attributed to Gandhi
Among dozens of us in alternative media, I’ve documented retired US Admiral John Kirby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and current US State Department Spokesperson, as blatantly lying in accusation of Russia committing War Crimes. His official and Oath-sworn responsibility is to accurately communicate US foreign policy in on the record media communications; with his Oath to support and defend the US Constitution.
The primary support of the US Constitution for the State Department, of course, is to not engage in the numerous unlawful and lie-started armed attacks around the world. A close second is to not engage inCrimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).
So for Admiral Kirby to continue supporting Wars of Aggression and Crimes Against Humanity in official duties, and ongoingly lie for more war-mongering against  Russia OBVIOUSLY calls for his legal arrest. An arrest lawfully stops a crime in commission. We do this to stop public harm now, and avoid further harm from more criminal acts.
In the above video, Russia Today’s Gayane Chichakyan questions Kirby about Pentagon confirmation that Russian invaded Turkey and NATO’s airspace. Kirby’s response includes:
  • Denying it’s US responsibility to provide proof.
  • Chuckling in derision of the question.
  • Claiming the question for evidence is “comical.”
  • The Orwellian twist that when the US claims Russia did something, it’s somehow not the “US responsibility to provide proof of what Russia’s doing.”
  • Confirming reports that “another” Russian aircraft invaded Turkey/NATO airspace for multiple invasions.
  • Claiming Russia disrespects Turkey/NATO boundaries.
  • Accusing Russia of risking further instability and military escalation.
Kirby: “It’s not our responsibility to provide proof to the Russians for something they did wrong… For our part, there’s no doubt they entered Turkish and therefore NATO airspace. No doubt at all.”
Q: “Is that alright to make an accusation and not provide evidence?”
Kirby: “It’s not an accusation; it’s a fact. It’s a simple fact.” (immediately turns away, pointing his finger to address another question)
Q: “Based on what? Can you provide pictures of that, anything?”
Kirby: “I’ve answered your question.”
My personal analysis as a person with an Oath to the US Constitution: this ongoing dishonorable lying and war-mongering criminal must be arrested, or the US will suffer under ongoing unlawful Wars of Aggression. In our immediate future, those with authority for arrests who act will be honored. Those who fail to act and/or support the War Criminals will be dishonored.
It’s that simple, and in Emperor’s New Clothes obviousness.
When Americans are ready, they will demand answers, and will choose to recognize the United States today is the leading global criminal empire among the so-called “former” colonial powers; ridiculous inEmperor’s New Clothes obvious crimes for anyone caring to look at the facts:
These crimes annually cost millions killed, billions harmed, and trillions looted, with recent history continuing literal centuries of US lie-began Wars of Aggression that involved your families in two horrific global wars for colonial empire.
5-minutes of Kirby’s past criminal lies:
**
Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
**
Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu