2012 - Afghanistan - "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" - And NATO-CIA Propaganda

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html 2012 Article Relates to Amnesty International USA. Former USA Executive Director 2012-2013: Suzanne Nossel Suzanne Nossel: currently executive director of PEN American Centre largest of the 144 centres that form a loose federation that comprise PEN International Current USA Executive Director appointment: Steven W. Hawkins Steven W. Hawkins: American social justice leader & litigator http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html Huffington Post - 2012 Coleen Rowley Former FBI Special Agent Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars Posted: 20/06/2012 00:50 AEST Updated: 18/08/2012 19:12 AEST By Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley The new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA -- Suzanne Nossel -- is a recent U.S. government insider. So it's a safe bet that AI's decision to seize upon a topic that dovetailed with American foreign policy interests, "women's rights in Afghanistan," at the NATO Conference last month in Chicago came directly from her. Nossel was hired by AI in January 2012. In her early career, Nossel worked for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke under the Clinton Administration at the United Nations. Most recently, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the U.S. Department of State, where she was responsible for multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women's issues, public diplomacy, press and congressional relations. She also played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council (where her views about the original Goldstone Report on behalf of Palestinian women did not quite rise to the same level of concerns for the women in countries that U.S.-NATO has attacked militarily). Nossel would have worked for and with Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, and undoubtedly helped them successfully implement their "Right to Protect (R2P)" -- otherwise known as "humanitarian intervention" -- as well as the newly created "Atrocity Prevention Board." This cornerstone of President Barack Obama's foreign policy (which has served mainly to rationalize the launching of war on Libya) is now being hauled out to call for U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria. "Smart Power" = smart wars? In fact, Nossel is herself credited as having coined the term "Smart Power," which embraces the United States' use of military power as well as other forms of "soft power," an approach which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced at her confirmation as the new basis of State Department policy. An excerpt from Nossel's 2004 paper on "Smart Power," published in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine, sounds a lot like Samantha Power's (and also traces back to Madeleine Albright's) theories: To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war. Washington, the theory goes, should thus offer assertive leadership -- diplomatic, economic, and not least, military [our emphasis] -- to advance a broad array of goals: self-determination, human rights, free trade, the rule of law, economic development, and the quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Following the CIA Red Cell Perhaps the AI's hiring of a State Department shill as executive director of its U.S. affiliate was merely coincidental to how/why its "NATO Shadow Summit" so closely mimicked the CIA's latest suggested propaganda device, but.... The "CIA Red Cell," a group of analysts assigned to think "outside the box" to anticipate emerging challenges, was right to worry in March 2010 when the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) found that 80 percent of French and German citizens were opposed to continued deployment of their countries' militaries in the U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan. Even though public apathy had, up to that point, enabled French and German politicians to "ignore their voters" and steadily increase their governments' troop contributions to Afghanistan, the CIA's newly-created think tank was concerned that a forecasted increase in NATO casualties in the upcoming "bloody summer ... could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal." In a confidential memo, the "Red Cell" wrote: The Afghanistan mission's low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009. Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters ... Only a fraction (0.1-1.3 percent) of French and German respondents identified 'Afghanistan' as the most urgent issue facing their nation in an open-ended question, according to the same polling. These publics ranked 'stabilizing Afghanistan' as among the lowest priorities for US and European leaders, according to polls by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) over the past two years. According to INR polling in the fall of 2009, the view that the Afghanistan mission is a waste of resources and 'not our problem' was cited as the most common reason for opposing ISAF by German respondents and was the second most common reason by French respondents. But the 'not our problem' sentiment also suggests that, so for, sending troops to Afghanistan is not yet on most voters' radar. But Casualties Could Precipitate Backlash If some forecasts of a bloody summer in Afghanistan come to pass, passive French and German dislike of their troop presence could turn into active and politically potent hostility. The tone of previous debate suggests that a spike in French or German casualties or in Afghan civilian casualties could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal. The CIA "Special Memorandum" went a step further, inviting "a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion" to suggest "information campaigns" that State Department polls showed likely to sway Western Europeans. The "Red Cell" memo was quickly leaked, however, furnishing a remarkable window into how U.S. government propaganda is designed to work upon NATO citizenry to maintain public support for the euphemistically titled "International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF) waging war on Afghans. Here are some of the CIA propaganda expert's suggestions: ...messaging that dramatizes the potential adverse consequences of an ISAF defeat for Afghan civilians could leverage French (and other European) guilt for abandoning them. The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France 's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties... Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission...Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences. Amnesty International struck similar themes in announcements posted online as well as billboard advertisements on Chicago bus stops (like the one above). Telling "NATO: Keep the Progress Going!", the ads beckoned us to find out more on Sunday, May 20, 2012, the day thousands of activists marched in Chicago in protest of NATO's wars. The billboard seemed to answer a recent Huffington Post blog post, "Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?" The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it's not doing so well with three quarters of the world's women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war ... a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America 's top foreign policy office has been held by women ... women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters. Our curiosity was further piqued because we consider ourselves to be women's rights and human rights proponents and also due to our own prior federal careers in intelligence and military. (Colonel Wright is retired from the State Department/US military and Rowley is from the FBI.) So along with a few other anti-war activists, we packed into a taxi to head to the Chicago hotel where Amnesty International's "Shadow Summit" featuring former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other female foreign relations officials was being held. We happened to carry our "NATO bombs are not humanitarian"; "NATO Kills Girls" and anti-drone bombing posters that we had with us for the march later that day. As we arrived, an official-looking black car dropped off Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, who was to be a main speaker (on the first panel, along with former Secretary Albright; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois; and Afifa Azim, General Director and Co-Founder, Afghan Women's Network; along with Moderator Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Deputy Director of the Council on Foreign Relations' Women and Foreign Policy Program). Verveer cast a cold glance at us and would not answer Ann Wright's questions as she scurried into the hotel with her aides surrounding her and us following behind. At first the hotel security guards tried to turn us away but we reminded the registration desk the Summit was advertised as "Free Admissions" and that some of us were members of Amnesty International. So they let us register and attend as long as we promised to leave our signs outside and not disrupt the speakers. The hotel conference room was about half full. We stayed long enough to hear the opening remarks and the moderator's first questions of Albright and the other speakers on the first panel. All generally linked the protection and participation of Afghan women in government as well as the progress made in educating Afghan women to the eventual peace and security of the country as envisioned by the new strategic "partnership" agreement that Obama had just signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Ms. Verveer said Afghan women do not want to be seen as "victims" but are now rightfully nervous about their future. When we saw that audience participation was going to be limited to questions selected from the small note cards being collected, we departed, missing the second panel as well as kite-flying for women's rights. We noted, even in that short time, however, how easy it was for these U.S. government officials to use the "good and necessary cause" of women's rights to get the audience into the palm of their collective hand -- just as the CIA's "strategic communication" expert predicted! But Why Ms. Albright? Not everyone was hoodwinked however. Even before the "Summit" was held, Amnesty realized it had a PR problem as a result of its billboard advertisement touting progress in Afghanistan. An Amnesty official tried to put forth a rather lame defense blaming an accidental poor choice of wording. But many readers (and AI members) posted critical comments and questions, including concerns about Albright's involvement given her infamous defense of Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s, which were estimated to have caused the deaths of a half million Iraqi children, with the comment "we think the price is worth it." Under the blogger's explanation: "We Get It / Human Rights Now," there were comments like these: ...Could someone from AI please explain why Madeleine Albright was invited to participate in this event? We (and especially those of us who are familiar with AI) should all be able to understand that the wording on the poster was a genuine, albeit damaging, mistake. But why Ms. Albright? The posters are pro-NATO and play into prevailing tropes about so called "humanitarian intervention" via "think of the women & children" imagery. The posters & the forum that includes Albright are neither slight slips nor without context. AI is coping heat because they have miss-stepped dramatically. There is NOTHING subtle about either the imagery nor the message! It is not a case of "oh sorry we didn't realize it it could be interpreted that way! They used pro Nato imagery & slogans ahead of & during a controversial summit that has thousands protesting in the streets. Tell me again how that is not taking sides? They asked a notorious apologist for mass murder of children to speak on the right of women and children...tell me again: how is that not taking sides. So it is absolutely reasonable for past supporters (and board members like myself) to be asking how it is that Amnesty USA so lost its bearings they could make a critical SERIES of errors like this? Of course the defensive AI blog author never answered the numerous questions asking why Amnesty had chosen Madeleine Albright as their main speaker. So we will venture an answer that probably lies in the fact that all of the powerful feminist-war hawks who have risen to become Secretary of State (or are waiting in the wings) are now taking their lead from the ruthless Grand Dame who paved the way for them, Madeleine Albright -- (see Coleen Rowley's recent blogs: "Obama's New 'Atrocity Prevention Board': Reasons for Skepticism" and "Militarization of the Mothers: You've Come a Long Way, Baby, from Mother's Day for Peace"). It's also possible the highest ranks of the feminist wing of military interventionism (i.e. Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al.) are so passionate and hubristic about the nobility of their goal and "Amercan exceptionalism" that some have simply succumbed to a kind of almost religious (blind faith) type fervor. The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions Nossel's and Albright's theories are flawed in many ways but suffice it to say that democracies are actually not less prone to war. A long list of "democracies" -- including Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, France and the United States itself -- disprove this assertion. In any event, the U.S. has been terribly hypocritical in its support of "democracies" in foreign countries, often toppling or attempting to topple them (i.e. Iran's Mossadeqh, Guatemala's Arbenz, Chile's Allende) in order to gain easier control of a foreign country through an allied dictatorship. No one is going to argue that the goals of humanitarianism, preventing atrocities and furthering women's rights around the world are not "good and necessary" (in the words of the CIA strategic communications expert). We would go so far as to say these ARE truly noble causes! Testimonials about human rights' abuse are often true and fundamentalist regimes' treatment of women seems to vary only in degrees of horrible. But while it's true that many women lack rights in Afghanistan, some would argue that it's conveniently true. And that the best lies are always based on a certain amount of truth. The devil, however, lies in the details of promoting equality and accomplishing humanitarianism. Most importantly the ends, even noble ends, never justify wrongful means. In fact, when people such as Samantha Power decide to bomb the village (Libya) to save it, it will backfire on a pragmatic level. It must be realized that it is the nobility of the U.S.-NATO's motivation that -- as CIA propaganda department has advised -- should be relied upon to convince otherwise good-hearted people (especially women) to support (or at least tolerate) war and military occupation (now known to encompass the worst of war crimes, massacres of women and children, torture, cutting off body parts of those killed, as well as increasing mental illness, self-destructive behavior and suicides among U.S. soldiers and the corresponding cover-ups of all such horrible means). In the decades after Vietnam, a number of military scholars identified declining American public support for that war as the main factor responsible for the U.S. "losing" Vietnam. One lesson learned and quickly implemented was to get rid of the military draft and put the wars on a credit card so fewer citizens would pay attention. Some control also had to be gained over the type of free media (that led to trusted TV anchor Walter Cronkite broadcasting his public souring on the Vietnam War). A whole series of war propaganda systems, from planting retired generals as "talking heads" on TV to the assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deciding to "embed the media," have worked pretty well to maintain the necessary level of war momentum in mainstream media and amongst public opinion. But now, with American polls approaching the same problematic levels as those in Europe cited by the "CIA Red Cell," we suddenly see major human rights organizations like Amnesty International (as well as others) applauding Obama's (and the feminist war-hawks') "Atrocity Prevention Board." Such sleight of hand seems to work even better amongst political partisans. By the way, it should be noted that Congress may allow these Pentagon propagandists to target American citizens through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Should we connect the dots? There are some clear lines where the laudable need to further human rights should not be twisted into justifying harsh economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children or, even worse, "shock and awe" aerial bombing that takes the lives of the women and children the "humanitarian" propagandists say they want to help. Madeleine Albright's response about the deaths of a half million children on 60 Minutes, that "the price was worth it," illustrates the quintessential falsity of what ethicists call "act utilitarianism" or concocting fictional happy outcomes to justify the terrible wrongful means. It also seems that a human rights NGO, in this case Amnesty International, which had gained a solid reputation and hence the trust of those it has helped through the years, will be jeopardized in aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO. This is exactly how the Nobel Peace Prize got corrupted, aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO, which is why Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire withdrew from the Nobel Peace forum held in Chicago during NATO. Good NGOS and non-profits that want to maintain the trust in their humanitarian work tend to be very careful to maintain their independence from any government, let alone any war-making government. When NGOs, even good ones, become entwined with the U.S./NATO war machine, don't they risk losing their independent credibility? Ann Wright is a 29-year U.S. Army/Army Reserve Colonel and a 16-year U.S. diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war. She returned to Afghanistan in 2007 and 2010 on fact-finding missions. Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She wrote a "whistleblower" memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures. She retired at the end of 2004, and now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation. (Originally posted on Consortiumnews.com) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING (POSTS) CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan LINK | here 'CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups' | Robert Parry LINK | here Mainstream Media - Concentrated - Big-6 Corporate Control - Lies & Indoctrination LINK | here Modern Art As CIA Weapon LINK | here Other Interesting: British Broadcasting Corporation Syria: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - Fraud LINK | here Summary US-NATO War Machine Humanitarian NGOs Shilling for US-NATO Wars Entwined with US/NATO War Machine Title: "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" Link | Post US-NATO / CIA PROPAGANDA SELLING AFGHANISTAN WAR USA UNSIGNING ROME STATUTE USA THREATENING MILITARY ACTION RE BRINGING USA BEFORE ICC CIA PROPAGANDA & MEDIA CONTROL - GENERAL Page | Link ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Feel like I've maybe read and posted this before. It's a pain tracking anything on this blog, so I've not looked to see if I've covered this. Memory's shocking, so it's all like new to me.   lol Anyway, I really enjoyed this article.  Even though it dates back to 2012, everything is applicable today in terms of how government, military, foreign policy, NGOs, humanitarian organisations etc operate. ꕤ

GLOBAL OFFENSIVE BY U.S. IMPERIALISM

Crimea Referendum: the Hidden Truth Behind the U.S.-Russia Rivalry The next stage in the global offensive by U.S. imperialism  Brian Becker Imperialism, however, isn’t fundamentally an ideological program or project. It is a global economic system that compels the banks and corporations to dominate every piece of potential real estate for the benefit of those same entities. ... Source - Global Research - here.

Lenin Characteristics of the imperialist epoch - concentration of production growth of monopolistic trusts and cartels importance of the export of capital (compared with the export of commodities) internationalisation of capitalist economic relations struggle between the rival European powers to partition the world market parasitism and decay of capitalism Kautsky Argued wrong to "identify with imperialism all the phenomena of present-day capitalism — ": cartels protection domination of the financiers colonial policy According 'to Kautsky, imperialism was not a "phase" of capitalist economic development but a "special policy" of capital ...': "striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex ever bigger areas of agrarian territory irrespective of what nations inhabit them". 'Kautsky argued that this "special policy" might be superseded after the world war by a new policy': 'the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism' "i.e., the peaceful uniting of all the rival finance groups into a single,world-wide trust and the "abolition of imperialism through a holy alliance of the imperialists". 'Lenin sought to counter this argument by demonstrating that imperialism was the highest and last stage of the development of capitalism.' Source - DSP - here.

Karl Johann Kautsky ( 1854 –1938) was a Czech-German philosopher, journalist, and Marxist theoretician. Kautsky was recognized as among the most authoritative promulgators of Orthodox Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels in 1895 until the coming of World War I in 1914 and was called by some the "Pope of Marxism." Following the war, Kautsky was an outspoken critic of the Bolshevik Revolution and its excesses, engaging in polemics with V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky on the nature of the Soviet state. He saw the Bolsheviks (or Communists) as a conspiratorial organization that had gained power by a coup and initiated revolutionary changes for which there was no economic rationale in Russia. Karl Kautsky died October 17, 1938 in Amsterdam. His son, Benedikt Kautsky (de) spent seven years in concentration camps, while his wife Luise Kautsky died in Auschwitz.  Kautsky is remembered, in addition to his anti-Bolshevik polemics, for his editing and publication of Marx's Capital, Volume IV (usually published as "Theories of Surplus Value"). Source - Wikipedia - here. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) (1870 – 1924) was a Russian communist revolutionary, politician and political theorist. He served as the leader of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1917, and then concurrently as Premier of the Soviet Union from 1922-[1924]. Under his administration... Russian Empire ... replaced by the Soviet Union, a single-party constitutionally socialist state; all wealth including land, industry and business were nationalized. Based in Marxism, his theoretical contributions to Marxist thought are known as Leninism. Died aged 53. Chinese premier Sun Yat-sen ... said: Through the ages of world history, thousands of leaders and scholars appeared who spoke eloquent words, but these remained words. You, Lenin, were an exception. You not only spoke and taught us, but translated your words into deeds. You created a new country. You showed us the road of joint struggle... You, great man that you are, will live on in the memories of the oppressed people through the centuries. Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honour. Source - Wikipedia - here.

So are we living an an age of ultra-imperialism?

I think we are, but I don't think it matters whether it is a progression of capitalism to it's logical conclusion or if it is the result of a 'special policy'.

How amazing is it that people sat around working out these theories?  

Unsure what the mutual disdain was about:

Kautsky ... castigated Lenin in his 1934 work Marxism and Bolshevism: Democracy and Dictatorship: "The Bolsheviki under Lenin's leadership, however, succeeded in capturing control of the armed forces in Petrograd and later in Moscow and thus laid the foundation for a new dictatorship in place of the old Czarist dictatorship."

Both Lenin and Trotsky, however, defended the Bolshevik Revolution as a legitimate and historic social upheaval akin to the French Revolution, casting themselves and the Bolsheviks in the role of the Jacobins, and viewing the "opportunism" of Kautsky and similar figures as a function of "social bribery" rooted in their increasing intimacy with the privileged classes. [wikipedia]

Even though I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm going to side with Lenin and Trotsy, because Lenin got past the theorising and actually got the job done.

Why do these guys take this stuff so seriously?  

What's wrong with trying something just to see if it works, without over-thinking it or expecting it to be some absolute solution?

So is it possible to escape 'imperialism'?  

To my way of thinking, it's impossible.  All you can change is the rulers and the rules.

Trying to picture global communism but it's impossible for me to imagine.  

What would happen?  

Wouldn't it still be the same thing, in that nations would still be vying for resources, profit, territory, military supremacy ... etc?

The articles are worthwhile looking at.  Might have to revisit the 'Imperialism Highest Stage ...' article (Source - DSP - here) because my concentration and ability to take things in is fairly limited.  LOL

P.S.  Thought about it some more doing the dishes ... I'm with Lenin again.  

It's a progression:   imperialism is the final stage of capitalism.

The very nature of capitalism is MORE, MORE, MORE ... more stuff, more consumption, more sales, more profits, more markets ... and, as cartels and monopolies grow out of that, doesn't that just feed into the MORE, and MORE, and MORE nature of the beast (only the MORE is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer powerful players) ... so it's a cycle that feeds on itself to a logical conclusion:  concentration and control.

After bashing that out, I'm having second thoughts ... what if I'm wrong?  LOL.

Nope, I'm sticking with that. 

Sneaky EU - Double Standards - Lifting Ukraine Arms Ban

Russia accuses EU of ending ban on arms to Ukraine 14:25, 02 August 2014 Saturday Russia's Foreign Ministry accused the European Union of "double standards" on Saturday by lifting a ban on supplying Ukraine with military technology and equipment "on the quiet". Relations between Moscow and Brussels have deteriorated since the EU imposed sanctions on Russia over its involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russian separatists are fighting government forces. In its heaviest penalties on Moscow yet, the EU passed a new round of sanctions on Russia's defence, energy and financial sectors this week. "During a recent meeting of the Council of Europe in Brussels, leaders of EU member states agreed 'on the quiet' to remove restrictions on exports to Kiev of equipment that could be used for internal repression," the ministry said in a statement on its website. "Exports of military technologies and equipment were also allowed," the statement said, without saying when the decision was taken by the EU. It said the restrictions had been put in place in February, the month that Viktor Yanukovich was ousted as Ukraine's president. Removing such restrictions showed double standards, it said, and called on EU leaders not to be "goaded" by Washington over events in eastern Ukraine. EU officials in Brussels were not immediately available for comment. [LOL] http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/141770/russia-accuses-eu-of-ending-ban-on-arms-to-ukraine

US owns the EU -- they're all tied to the US via the NATO rort.

Mind you, Corporate America probably owns the lot of them.  LOL.

What sneaky, double-dealing so-and-sos they are ... but, hey, we already know that ... just look at the history of imperialism, appropriation, lies, deceit and worldwide injustice.

NATO Poland base - Blitz against Russia?

NATO Poland base may be prepared for blitz against Russia Published time: July 24, 2014 13:39 NATO’s Europe commander advocates stockpiling a base in Poland with enough weapons, ammunition and other supplies to support a rapid deployment of thousands of troops against Russia, British media reported. General Philip Breedlove’s idea would be presented to members of the alliance at the upcoming NATO summit in Wales in September, according to The Times. The general told a briefing in Naples this week that NATO needed “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept follow-on forces.” Several locations for the future stockpile are planned, with the Multinational Corps Northeast, a base in Szczecin near the Polish-German border being the leading contender. “It would be a 24/7 fully functioning headquarters that forces could quickly fall in on to respond rapidly when needed,” the British newspaper cites a source familiar with the expected proposition as saying. Breedlove has been advocating a build-up of NATO assets in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis in the secession of Ukraine’s Crimea to Russia. The alliance has already strengthened its presence in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea and deployed additional military aircraft in Eastern Europe. It said the moves were needed to boost the confidence of eastern NATO members in the alliance’s ability to protect them from Russian aggression. The stockpiling of supplies is just a step short of a permanent massive deployment of foreign NATO troops in Poland. The alliance says it is needed for a rapid response to a Russian incursion, although Russian generals would probably view this as a possible preparation for a blitzkrieg attack on Russia. Moscow considers the build-up of NATO troops in Europe as part of a hostile policy aimed at placing the alliance’s military resources closer to its borders. Russia’s current military doctrine allows the use of all weapons in its possession, including tactical nuclear weapons, in response to a conventional force attack on Russia. Source - RT News - here.

The US look pretty keen on expanding their stake in Europe.

RUSSIA on NATO BUILD-UP ON RUSSIA'S DOORSTEP

"The cruiser Vella Gulf is participating in a multinational exercise in the Black Sea, where the Russian navy is holding separate large-scale war games. Gunner's Mate Seaman Frank Bassett manned a machine gun in mid-June as the cruiser approached the Bosphorus Strait. (MCSN Edward Guttierrez III / Navy)" - SOURCE - Navy Times - here.

RT News Article 'We will react to NATO build-up!':  Key Putin quotes from defense policy address Published time: July 22, 2014 22:55     NATO forces have been increasing military presence in Eastern European countries bordering Russia and sending warships to the Baltic and Mediterranean due to the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis. NATO has also stated that it will endorse new funding for Ukraine's defense, blaming Russia for destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. “We shall provide an adequate and well-measured response to NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders, and we shall take note of [the West] setting up a global missile defense architecture and building up its arsenals of precision-guided weapons,” Putin said on Tuesday. "... NATO is blatantly building up its forces in Eastern Europe, including the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea areas. Its operational and combat training activities are gaining in scale.” Putin stated that NATO’s military build-up near Russia’s border is not just for defense, but is an “offensive weapon” and an “element of the US offensive system deployed outside the mainland.” “With that in mind, we need to promptly and diligently implement all the measures we have planned to strengthen our nation’s defense capabilities, including our plans for Crimea and Sevastopol, where we will practically have to set up our military architecture from scratch.” On sanctions and sovereignty Putin has criticized the rounds of sanctions that the US and EU have imposed on Russia, which began during Crimea's accession to Russia and continued after the MH17 plane crash in Ukraine. “The very concept of the state sovereignty is becoming diluted. Unwanted regimes and countries that are trying to exercise independent policy or simply stand in the way of someone’s interests are getting destabilized,” Putin said. “Attempts aimed at destabilizing the social and political situation, throwing off Russia and striking at its vulnerable and soft spots have been and will be made,” he added. According to Putin, Western states are trying to “make Russia agreeable so that certain matters at the international arena are resolved in favor of other countries.” “The so-called competitive struggle at the international arena will imply the use of tools in both economic and political fields. This will include the potential of security services, modern information and communication technologies, and connections of dependent, puppet NGOs – the so-called soft power,” Putin pointed out. “Apparently, some countries regard it as democracy.” Putin stressed that Russia has an edge over other states, as the country isn’t a member of any alliance. “Any alliance member countries lose part of their sovereignty and it rarely goes in tune with the national interests of the country. But it’s their sovereign decision.” “On our part, we follow all the norms of international law and fulfill our obligations to our partners. We expect other countries and organizations, military and political alliances – Russia is not a part of any alliance, and that underpins our sovereignty – to take our national interests into consideration.” The president also pointed out that any controversial issues in Russia will be “settled through diplomatic means only,” with no other state meddling in the country's internal affairs. Such methods that are used to pressure weak countries will not work on Russia, he said, adding that they are “absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive” and “undermining the current world order.” On Ukraine crisis and MH17 investigation Internal problems are often used to trigger coups that are financed from outside, Putin said. “Of course, there always are some kinds of problems, but it is not clear why one has to use them to completely destabilize and destroy the country – what we often see recently in various regions of the world.” As a result of such coups, radical nationalist – or simply neo-fascist, fundamentalist forces – come to power, which is what happened in Ukraine, Putin said. "Yes, after the coup, elections were held, but for some reason again those who funded or carried out the coup became the heads of state. The current authorities are using force trying to silence the part of the population that disagrees with this development," Putin noted with regret. The international community has been calling on Russia to use its influence on the eastern anti-government militia to cooperate in the resolution of the crisis. “We of course will do everything in our power but that is not nearly enough,” the president said. Putin believes the West must appeal to Kiev to honor its ceasefire pledge. Putin highlighted that Kiev should not fuel the conflict, citing Tuesday’s incident when “the Ukrainian Armed Forces attacked Donetsk with their tanks” as the local militia were handing the black box of the crashed MH17 over to experts. “Tanks broke through to the train station and opened fire at it. The international experts there could not even look out of the windows,” said the Russian head of state. “It’s not like the rebels are shooting at themselves.” SOURCE - RT News - here.

Here's the news that won't appear in the morning paper, on the radio -- or on the evening news -- in the west.

Wonder what the US reaction would be if Russia and her friends were building up forces in Mexico and around US seas?

As for the Ukraine military shooting at the east Ukrainians handing over the MH17 black box, how warped is that?

It's amazing that anything was organised in those conditions, after the downing of MH17.  

Maybe the politicians criticising and pronouncing these men as 'despicable', from the safety of their luxury accommodation etc, should be sent out there to have a crack at doing better than those under fire.

The reference to:

other countries and organizations, military and political alliances

shows just how much bullying and pressure countries outside of these alliances are subjected to, to further the interests of the multiple alliance nations' corporate agendas.

US to sell 'militarised drones' to allies?

RT America News Article below:

Published on 16 Jul 2014

 

The [US] State Department's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Strategic Affairs, Kenneth Handelman, hinted this week that the U.S. might soon loosen its restrictions on exporting militarized drones to allies. Speaking at an international airshow, Handelman told the audience to stay tuned. 

A 1987 agreement known as the Missile Technology Control Regime, which was signed by 34 nations, prevents the spread of unmanned systems that have the capability of carrying weapons of mass destruction. 

But, with dozens of countries pursuing this type of technology, it's only a matter of time before one of them succeeds. 

Proponents say the relaxed restrictions will boost competition and stimulate the economy. 

Opponents are worried about civilian casualties or the scenario of these weapons ending up in the wrong hands. 

RT Correspondent Meghan Lopez reports from the State Department about these developments. 

SOURCE - RT America News - Video - here.

---------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

US corporate interests want money so the bet is the agreement falls by the wayside.

Also, the NATO crew are all increasing the military spending (as per US directive) and have agreed to escalated US military presence in Europe, so I predict drones sold to allies in the very near future.  

LOL.

US & EU - Hit Russia with further sanctions

Reuters Article

U.S. hits oil giant Rosneft, other firms with toughest Russia sanctions

By Anna Yukhananov and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:29pm EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama imposed the biggest package of U.S. economic sanctions yet on Russia on Wednesday, hitting Russia's largest oil producer Rosneft (ROSN.MM) and other energy, financial and defense firms, with what he called significant but targeted penalties.

Obama's latest round of sanctions came after close consultations with European leaders, who announced a less-ambitious package. The ultimate impact of the U.S. sanctions likely depends on whether the European Union follows suit.

The extent of the sanctions against key parts of the Russian energy and financial industry, including Gazprombank (GZPRI.RTS), was intended to serve notice to Moscow that its refusal to curb violence in eastern Ukraine has consequences.

The targeted companies also include Russia's second-largest gas producer, Novatek (NVTK.MM), Vnesheconombank, or VEB, a state-owned bank that acts as payment agent for the Russian government, and eight arms firms.

The U.S. Treasury Department said the measures effectively closed medium- and long-term dollar funding to the two banks and energy companies. But the sanctions did not freeze those four companies' assets, or otherwise prohibit U.S. firms or companies from doing business with them. [WOULD NOT RECOMMEND BUSINESS IN USA ... LOL]

It is the first time the United States has imposed such narrowly targeted measures as it seeks the maximum impact on Russia, a huge energy producer, while avoiding any immediate shock to global oil markets or U.S. and EU companies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking in Brasilia, said the sanctions would damage U.S. energy companies, and bring relations with Russia to a "dead end."
...

POSSIBLE FURTHER SANCTIONS

Obama said the United States could impose further sanctions if Russia did not take concrete steps to ease the conflict.

The United States has already imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian senior officials since the start of the violence, including Rosneft's chief executive, Igor Sechin. But the sanctions have had only a limited impact on the Russian energy industry, a cornerstone of the country's $2 trillion economy.

It is not yet clear how large an impact the new measures will have on Rosneft ...

Sechin, who like Putin was speaking in Brasilia, said the sanctions would not affect Rosneft's current project with ExxonMobil (XOM.N), but would damage the shareholders of U.S. companies cooperating with Rosneft.

The new sanctions would not appear to prevent Rosneft from selling its oil, but may raise questions about the company’s more than $15 billion worth of oil-related finance arrangements with companies including BP (BP.L), which now owns almost a fifth of Rosneft, and Glencore.

Morgan Stanley (MS.N), which is selling the majority of its global physical oil trading operations to Rosneft, declined to comment.

The sanctions stopped short of targeting Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM), the world's largest natural gas producer and provider of much of Europe's energy supplies. Gazprombank is 36 percent-owned by Gazprom.  [Gazprom, as I understand, only provides about 30% of European energy supplies.]

RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE
...
The new measures were announced on the same day that EU leaders met in Brussels and agreed to expand their own sanctions on Russia.

The new U.S. sanctions also include Feodosiya Enterprises, a shipping facility in Crimea, and senior Russian officials, several of whom had already been targeted by the European Union.
...
The new sanctions were unlikely to please Republican lawmakers, many of whom have been calling for the imposition of sanctions on entire Russian industries, rather than specific companies, as the best way to control Putin.

...
EXTRACTS ONLY
SOURCE - Reuters - here.

---------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Whatever happened to free trade and free market prinicples?  LOL

Any Russians with bank accounts in the US, might want to start withdrawing fast.

US-NATO-EU GANG - RESORT TO TWITTER PROPAGANDA

TWITTER

PROPAGANDA US-NATIO EU GANG


Retweeted 201 times
[USA] Department of State @StateDept Jul 15

Russia says it seeks peace; actions don't match rhetoric. No evidence support has ceased for separatists in #Ukraine. http://goo.gl/fJIu4y

William Hague @WilliamJHague 17h

@sikorskiradek thank you Radek. Have appreciated our close views particularly on #Ukraine, Russia and @NATO
View conversation  [ie POLISH PUPPET, RADEK SIKORSKI]

Geoffrey Pyatt  [Geoffrey R. Pyatt, is the United States Ambassador to Ukraine]


Ukrainian military AN26 plane shot down at 6,200m: any plausible explanation other than attack by #Russia? Is this ‘de-escalation’? #Ukraine@GeoffPyatt 17h

Simon Smith @SimonSmithFCO Jul 15
Russia continues to provide militants with heavy weapons, equipment and financing, and allows them to enter #Ukraine. http://goo.gl/BuxJpb
Expand

[SMITH IS UK AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE]

NATOSource ‏@NATOSource Jul 14 - [ATLANTIC COUNCIL ]

.@UKNATO Amb Adam Thomson: "How do you counter Russian propaganda? How do we do better on cyber defense?" #Ukraine http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/nato-leaders-prepare-response-to-russia-s-information-warfare …

 AtlanticCouncil ‏@AtlanticCouncil Jul 14

'Russian involvement in #Ukraine is far more than tanks & soldiers.' - @ChathamHouse's James Nixey in @MoscowTimes: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russias-invisible-hand-shapes-ukraine-conflict/503163.html …
[MORE ATLANTIC COUNCIL]

-----------------------------------------------

COMMENT


These jerks have got their assistants tweeting away their propaganda, wondering how to counter 'Russian propaganda'.  

LOL.