Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Economy Minister visits Ukraine, gets assurances of continued gas flow
20 Aug 2014 Flash News
SLOVAK Economy Minister Pavol Pavlis visited Ukraine on August 19 and held talks with his counterpart Yuriy Prodan in Kiev.
Pavlis learnt that Ukraine’s new so-called “sanctions law” won’t be used to the detriment of Slovakia, with gas flows from Russia to be provided by Ukraine as they have been until now. “This is an important piece of news for us, one that we want to take back home,” Pavlis said in Kiev, as quoted by the TASR newswire.
As stipulated in a recent agreement, Slovakia has modernised the Vojany-Uzhgorod gas pipeline and is thus able to provide a reverse flow from western Europe to Ukraine. Kiev has been at variance with Russia on gas prices and on paying off its debt to Moscow for months [ie UKR IS A NON-PAYING CUSTOMER], and supplies have even been cut in the past. However, Ukraine still transits gas supplies to European customers, including Slovakia. As a result of the law approved in Ukraine last week, restrictions may in the future apply to the transit of Russian goods across Ukraine.
“Slovakia is a country that has provided Ukraine with options for gas supplies very promptly under the reverse flow,” Pavlis said. “We now expect reciprocity in solidarity in that Slovakia will continue to receive gas from Russia. I have to take the minister’s [Prodan’s] word for it that the law won’t be used against Slovakia.”
Prodan voiced his appreciation for Slovakia’s provision of the reverse flow and gave assurances that Ukraine will do its best not to jeopardise gas supplies. The approved law is only a framework piece of legislation that makes no explicit mention of gas or oil, said Prodan, with the decision on sanctions in the hands of the country’s national security council.
Prodan added that gas supplies to Europe are fully in the hands of Russia’s Gazprom now, with Ukraine having no influence on Gazprom’s moves.
Slovakia has sealed a long-term contract with Gazprom on gas supplies until 2029, said Pavlis, voicing Slovakia’s commitment to keeping to the contract.
While gas supplies from Russia through Ukraine have been the subject of disputes for a long time, similar problems with oil are not expected. The issue of oil was only a marginal topic in the talks.
If Slovak companies were to acquire ownership shares in Ukrainian companies operating gas pipelines, that would be their own private initiative, Pavlis further said. “The [Slovak] state certainly won’t become engaged in it. This is up to private companies,” he said. Privatisation was among the issues discussed by Pavlis and Prodan. “I’ve given the minister [Prodan] the chance to learn a lesson from our negative experience with privatisations,” said Pavlis.
After the talks, Pavlis laid wreaths at a memorial to the victims of the recent protests on Kiev’s Independence Square. Both officials are set to meet again in Vojany, Slovakia, on September 2, when the reverse-flow pipeline is scheduled to begin running at full capacity.
So this is about gas pipeline investment in Ukraine's sell-off and reverse flow of gas to Ukraine, presumably, while Slovakia is what? ... assuring itself that it will receive a gas supply via the Ukraine conduit? Not sure about that last bit.
If I were Russia, I'd be cutting off supply to the lot of them.
The Georgian foreign minister said ratification of the EU Association Agreement with the EU countries has been suspended due to summer holiday.
"Only four countries managed to ratify it, namely, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania," Maja Panjikidze stressed.
"I am sure that this process will continue in other countries in September," she said, adding that the vast majority of the countries will ratify the agreement by the end of the year.
"We had consultations with many countries. They know our position. They believe that this process should speed up. The second speaker of the Austrian Parliament, who was on a visit to Tbilisi, promised that the country will quickly ratify the agreement," Panjikidze noted.
Regarding the EU representatives' statements, Panjikidze considers this as an important support for Georgia.
"The authors of the statement are friends of Georgia," she said. "They are well aware of importance of the Association Agreement for Georgia."
It does not hamper the temporary use of the agreement due to the fact that most countries have not yet ratified it, she stressed.
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili, President of European Council Herman Van Rompuy and President of the EU Commission Jose Manuel Barroso signed an association agreement between Georgia and EU in Brussels, on June 27.
Georgia first put forth the signing of an association agreement with the EU at the Vilnius summit dedicated to the European Union's 'Eastern Partnership' countries - former Soviet states on November 29, 2013.
The EU believes that Association Agreement with Georgia will significantly deepen political and economic ties between the two sides with a long-term perspective of closer political association and economic integration.
"The Association Agreements aims to deepen political and economic relations between the EU and the other signatories and to gradually integrate these countries in the EU's Internal Market, the largest single market in the world," the EU reported.
Furthermore, the EU statement in particular noted that Georgia will benefit from new trading opportunities and easier access to the EU market.
The agreement should allow the Georgian economy to catch up with the EU in terms of competitiveness and thereby gradually find its place in the world economy. This will open up new opportunities not only in the EU-Georgia trade, but in Georgia's trade with the rest of the world, given the worldwide recognition of EU norms and standards.
The EU also signed the association agreement with Ukraine and Moldova. The EU and Ukraine signed only the economic section of the agreement.
Putin's Kremlin Is a Fugitive From International Justice
By Mark Lawrence Schrad Aug. 20 2014 19:46 Last edited 19:46 In the summer of 2006, some Russian friends visited my Moscow apartment, where I was busily preparing course lectures on international law for the fall semester. "But you're an American," they guffawed, "what could you possibly know about international law?" Then they delighted in listing America's legal transgressions — Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Kosovo, etc. It was galling, but they were right. Teaching courses on both international law and Russian politics in subsequent years, I've been particularly attuned to international law as a tool of Russian foreign policy. Acting as self-appointed global counterweight to the U.S. — and often wielding its veto in the United Nations Security Council to that effect — Russia has consistently invoked international law and the principle of national sovereignty to oppose everything from additional sanctions against Iran to humanitarian intervention in Syria. And though many may disagree with Russia's politics, until recently the Kremlin's invocation of international law has — with the glaring exceptions of the 2008 war with Georgia, the expropriation of Yukos, and the endless Chechnya-related petitions before the European Court of Human Rights — been largely consistent, understandable and defensible. The Kremlin even alludes to international law some 17 times in the most recent "Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation," the mission statement of Russian foreign policy. Approved by President Vladimir Putin in February 2013, it prioritizes strengthening international law ahead of even international security, economic cooperation, environmental concerns and human rights. But with breathtaking speed, the Kremlin has gone from one of the staunchest defenders of international law to being one of the biggest fugitives from it. Russia's "unconditional respect for international law" as declared in the 2013 "concept" can only be read as a farce in light of Russia's overt and covert intervention in Ukraine in 2014. The Kremlin's "concept" articulates the legal foundations in the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. The most fundamental provision of the UN Charter is Article 2(4): "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This was the basis for the Kremlin's accusations against Western interference from Kosovo to Syria. Now, it more readily applies to Russia's invasion of Crimea, aiding rebels in the Ukrainian east, and threatening military force by massing tanks at the border. But if overturning the entire legal foundation of both the European and global security order — one that the Kremlin itself swore to uphold just months before — wasn't enough, the invasion and annexation of Crimea adds more to Russia's rap sheet. [...] Mark Lawrence Schrad is the author of "Vodka Politics: Alcohol, Autocracy and the Secret History of the Russian State," and director of Russian studies and assistant professor of political science at Villanova University. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/kremlin-is-a-fugitive-from-international-justice/505528.html
This is nothing but a US propaganda piece published in a Finnish owned publication and written by a US academic who lectures at Villanova Uni ... which happens to be in Pennsylvania (here).
Generally, I'm all for freedom of press. However, in this instance, my feeling is: Russia, kick out foreign owned press.
Russia gets enough anti-Russian propaganda in the western press and in the web of western lobbying NGOs etc. So it's not like they need this crap 'in-house'.
Straight up, the article goes into Russia being 'self-appointed' this or that, like Russia needs to justify its existence and its actions to some Yank who thinks the world revolves around the US. Newsflash: it doesn't. Russia's actions are Russia's actions, independent of the US. Or, putting it another way, it is what it is -- it's not some challenge to the US. If the US and it's supporters wish to view it as such, so be it, but no need to smear Russia for its actions -- particularly when the US are the biggest bully violators of nations and resources on this planet. And, no, they weren't born to rule.
Russia's entitled to call on whatever laws it wishes. It's just as entitled to be inconsistent and to do whatever it takes to pursue Russia's interests. It's not like the US obeys international laws or its own laws and the US is certainly not consistent, so who gives a toss about consistency or which laws are invoked to serve whatever purpose. It's dog eat dog and the US is the dirtiest dog of the pack.
US wankers are big on invoking the 'global security' bullshit -- while decimating global security.
Anyone that's interested in reading the hypocritical beat-up article can do so.
Ukraine’s Economy Minister Pavlo Sheremeta said in a text message to Reuters on Thursday that he had offered to resign.
Indicating frustration at not being able to push ahead with economic reform, Sheremeta, who was appointed soon after the ousting of a Moscow-backed president in February, said separately on his Facebook page that he no longer wanted to “fight against yesterday’s system”.
Losing a bit of interest in the middle east. Too complicated and too hard to follow.
Current focus tends to be mostly on Ukraine.
However, I noticed that a heap of people (including Imran Khan) are planning on protesting in Pakistan over what they claim is rigged elections.
The government's troops/guards are going to square up to the protesters, so it could potentially get out of hand.
UK's Philip Hammond asked everyone to resolve things 'democratically', which struck me as rather lame and comic when things don't sound too democratic over in Pakistan.
Russell Brand's done another funny video; this time taking the piss out of some US wannabe-warmonger type of news presenter carrying on about ISIS.
Found it amusing mostly because the news guy's posturing carry-on actually is hilarious.
Don't have too many positive feelings about the middle east, though.
Middle east seems too warped to be fixed and it seems like there's no hope for anything over there.
The big story is a journalist (James Foley) has been beheaded.
Did not read about it until some 'Who was James Foley' article popped up in front of me on twitter (where I've been wasting time lately). Briefly skimmed over the article. Looks like he's had a close call before.
Anyway, I wasn't game to look at the video because I find it disturbing to see a slow act of killing.
It was only when I saw all these reports that it was being suppressed, that entertainers were calling on people not to look at it etc, that I thought I'll take a look (because they don't want me to look).
Went to LiveLeak (as twitter was allegedly blocking it). First video off the rank was the blotted out face version. Even so, I didn't get past a few seconds of it because I just couldn't handle knowing what was about to happen. Does my head in. Can't watch it even kind of screened off.
It is such a sick thing to do. I can't understand how anyone would think this was an OK way to kill someone. That sounds weird, because there's probably no really OK way to kill people. But, anyway, if you're going to take someone's life, I don't understand the need to be really close, personal, bloodied, slow and sick about it.
That's why I don't think there is any hope. There is no crossing that divide between middle east and west.
By David Ignatius Opinion writer August 19 at 8:03 PM
ASPEN, Colo.
At the public kickoff of a discussion here about U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine, former defense secretary Robert Gates joked that his favorite definition of diplomacy was “petting a dog and saying ‘nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.”
Sometimes, U.S. global strategy can be as haphazard as that. But something close to a coherent, consensus policy toward Russia emerged over four days of debate by the Aspen Strategy Group, a gathering of senior current and former officials, plus some think tank leaders and journalists. The discussions were off the record, but members were encouraged to share the contours of the debate and its conclusions.
The discussions converged on an approach that resists President Vladimir Putin’s push in Ukraine while continuing to engage Russia economically and politically. “Don’t give in to Putin, but don’t give up on Russia” is how one participant summed up the group’s conclusion.
“How can we deter Putin from further aggression in Ukraine and drive up the costs to him while, at the same time, keep[ing] the lines open to him on nuclear security, proliferation and Iran?” That’s how Nick Burns, a Harvard professor and the group’s director, summed up the discussion in a message after the conference. [This is a corporate stooge. The only aggression is US imperialist aggression in the region & this guy should be ashamed of himself.]
When Vladimir Putin came to office in 2000, the former KGB man promised to bring about change in Russia. The reality is that Putin has led the country backwards. Here are several examples of abuses that have occurred under his watch.
Moscow theater crisis in 2002 A TV image from Russian television network NTV shows a pistol wielding Chechen rebel, right, standing behind a group of hostages in a Moscow theater in October 2002. Chechen rebels held nearly 1,000 hostages for three days. Dozens of hostages were killed when Russian forces pumped sleeping gas into the theater before storming the building in a rescue operation. NTV-TV via Reuters
The Aspen discussion mirrored the official debate taking place in Washington. The balance of Republicans and Democrats was roughly equal, and the conclusions were somewhat more hawkish than Obama administration policy. But, like the White House, the group agreed on the need for engagement and “off ramps” that open a path for Russia to accept a sovereign but nonhostile Ukraine.
The plan to send humanitarian aid, administered by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in Russian convoys across the border into eastern Ukraine was just taking shape as we met, with some arguing that this was a face-saving exit for Putin and others countering that it was a cover for Russian invasion. [Morons]
One continuing theme was the fundamental weakness of Russia, despite Putin’s cocky attempt at “redux” that seeks to reassert Soviet-era prerogatives. One presenter described Russia’s demographic disaster: a shrinking population; a chronic health crisis that puts Russia between Tanzania and Angola in male life expectancy; a dearth of entrepreneurship, so that the nation ranks below Alabama in patents awarded over the past 10 years.
Given these devastating numbers, noted a panelist, it’s clear that Russia is in decline. The question is whether Russia will experience a sudden decline or a gradual one. The consensus was that U.S. interests wouldn’t be served by fast decline and the resulting instability.
At the beginning of the retreat, there was sharp criticism of “Putinism” and its arrogant assertion of Russian power. Some argued that Putin was “delusional” in thinking he could restore the prerogatives of the Soviet Union. But others cautioned that Putin’s actions were a predictable reaction to Russia’s humiliation after the crack up of the U.S.S.R. — and that the United States (unlike the impulsive Putin) should play what one former Cabinet official called “the long game.”
Putin had made three big mistakes in Ukraine, noted one commentator. He thought the battle for eastern Ukraine would be a walkover for his covert proxy forces, as Crimea was; he thought the pro-Russian separatists could be controlled; and he thought the newly elected government of President Petro Poroshenko would be weak and short-lived.
As the Aspen discussions progressed, participants focused increasingly on positive steps the United States could take to complement the negative pressure of sanctions. Helping Poroshenko’s Ukraine to become a stronger, less-corrupt nation was a priority, and one participant suggested that the United States lead an international reconstruction program for the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
Helping Ukraine resist a Russian invasion was a consensus point. There was agreement that a direct U.S. or European military intervention was unlikely, but many participants argued that it would be wise to send lethal-weapons assistance to Ukraine. Several also noted that the United States should quietly advise Ukraine on ways to make an invasion costly for Russia.
Through the four days of discussion, there was a tension between the “squeezers” and the “dealers,” as one participant characterized the meeting’s hawks and doves. But interestingly, the split didn’t fit party lines. In the freewheeling discussion, Democrats sometimes argued a tougher line than Republicans.
The Aspen group was celebrating its 30th anniversary, under the chairmanship of Harvard professor Joseph Nye and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Suffice it to say that this is the way the policy-formulation process is supposed to work in America, but it rarely does.
The article opens with a 'joke' from an ex US Secretary of Defence and ex CIA tosser Robert Graves. But it doesn't go on to say that Robert Graves is some kind of psychopath warmonger who's got a history of concocting anti-Russian crap -- and a history of causing mayhem all over the world by the look of it (here).
They've got an academic representing imperialist interests and the only thing these people are concerned about is PROFITS - namely, US profits.
The toll on lives and the future of generations is of no concern to these creeps who would do anything to fuck up the lives out countless people who don't deserve to be their pawns.
What does the article tell you about the kind of people that are involved in US government and US intelligence and in US NGO lobby groups etc? What does it tell you about US diplomacy and any trust in the US?
The US is full of filth that destroys everything it encroaches on, right around the world.
It is beyond belief that any country deals with the US, let alone allows the US to colonise their nations like they do with the trade agreements, their 'defence' agreements, their investment, the sneaky extra-national bodies etc.
..........................................
The Sick Bastards 'Foreign Policy & National Security' Jerk Off Club:
