Aggressive NATO Expansion - Risking Nuking Europe

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/11/441314/US-Russia-nuclear-deployment-Europe-NATO Russia says US deployed 200 nuclear bombs in Europe Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:20PM The United States has deployed around 200 nuclear bombs across Europe, Russia says, warning that the increased military operations of NATO, led by the US, is deteriorating the military-political situation in the world.         “About 200 US nuclear bombs are currently deployed in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey. This nuclear ordnance is also subject to a renewal program,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Friday, Sputnik news agency reported. The Russian minister further blasted the US and NATO for their gradual expansion of military activity, saying the approach is mainly to blame for the deteriorating military-political situation in the world. “We also observe the gradual expansion of the NATO bloc,” he said, adding that during a relatively short time NATO has increased by twofold its members. Shoigu said that Russia has also greatly improved the capabilities of its strategic nuclear forces in a countermeasure to US and NATO’s rising nuclear deployment, adding that the Russian nuclear triad is now outfitted with 55 percent of modern hardware.  Russia does not look favorably upon the deployment of nuclear weapons in NATO states near its borders. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in June that if NATO threatens Russia, Moscow will respond to the threat accordingly. “If someone threatens our territories, it means that we will have to aim our armed forces accordingly at the territories from where the threat is coming. How else could it be? It is NATO that approaching our borders, it’s not like we are moving anywhere,” he said. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/11/441314/US-Russia-nuclear-deployment-Europe-NATO Nuclear triad nuclear weapons delivery of strategic nuclear arsenal consisting of 3 components 1/ strategic bombers 2/ intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) 3/ submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) insurance against destruction of all national nukes in a first-strike attack ensuring a credible threat of second-strike (ie nation's nuclear deterrence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad   ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Europe is going to be destroyed by nukes because of the US. It might not happen any time soon, but it will happen. Why would European natives expect Americans, who are over the other side of the Atlantic: (a) well away from the potential nuclear blast; and (b) with no vestige of tribal or emotional links to Europe; to defend core European interests?  Unfortunately, the same can be said of European politicians who show no regard whatsoever for the history and heritage of their own people. ꕤ

Refugee Crisis | How Neocons Destabilise Europe

ꕤ Article SOURCE Robert Parry American investigative journalist breaking Iran-Contra affair for Associated Press (AP) & Newsweek breaking Psychological Ops in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) breaking CIA & Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal (1985) http://newcoldwar.org/refugee-crisis-how-neocons-destabilized-europe/ Refugee crisis: How neocons destabilized Europe By Robert Parry, Consortium News, September 7, 2015 Introduction by New Cold War.org: The neocon prescription of endless “regime change” is spreading chaos across the Middle East and now into Europe, yet the neocons still control the mainstream U.S. narrative and thus have diagnosed the problem as not enough “regime change,” as Robert Parry reports. Amidst the righteous humanitarian concern over the fate of millions of refugees in the Middle East seeking to flee the devastation of their homelands, Parry provides a needed reminder of the source of the crisis which mainstream news reporting and many analysts are ignoring, namely, the military interventions and austerity policies of the U.S., European Union and NATO military alliance into the region. Importantly, Parry explains the disastrous consequences of the extension of that intervention into Ukraine, leading to ‘regime change’ there in late 2013/early 2014. * * * The refugee chaos that is now pushing deep into Europe – dramatized by gut-wrenching photos of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi whose body washed up on a beach in Turkey – started with the cavalier ambitions of American neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks who planned to remake the Middle East and other parts of the world through “regime change”. On Aug 30, 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have proof that the Syrian gov't was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, but evidence failed to materialize or was later discredited [State Department photo] Instead of the promised wonders of “democracy promotion” and “human rights,” what these “anti-realists” have accomplished is to spread death, destruction and destabilization across the Middle East and parts of Africa and now into Ukraine and the heart of Europe. Yet, since these neocon forces still control the Official Narrative, their explanations get top billing – such as that there hasn’t been enough “regime change”. For instance, The Washington Post’s neocon editorial page editor Fred Hiatt on Monday blamed “realists” for the cascading catastrophes. Hiatt castigated them and President Barack Obama for not intervening more aggressively in Syria to depose President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime neocon target for “regime change.” But the truth is that this accelerating spread of human suffering can be traced back directly to the unchecked influence of the neocons and their liberal fellow-travelers who have resisted political compromise and, in the case of Syria, blocked any realistic efforts to work out a power-sharing agreement between Assad and his political opponents, those who are not terrorists. In early 2014, the neocons and liberal hawks sabotaged Syrian peace talks in Geneva by blocking Iran’s participation and turning the peace conference into a one-sided shouting match where U.S.-funded opposition leaders yelled at Assad’s representatives who then went home. All the while, the Post’s editors and their friends kept egging Obama to start bombing Assad’s forces. The madness of this neocon approach grew more obvious in the summer of 2014 when the Islamic State, an Al Qaeda spinoff which had been slaughtering suspected pro-government people in Syria, expanded its bloody campaign of beheadings back into Iraq where this hyper-brutal movement first emerged as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” in response to the 2003 U.S. invasion. It should have been clear by mid-2014 that if the neocons had gotten their way and Obama had conducted a massive U.S. bombing campaign to devastate Assad’s military, the black flag of Sunni terrorism might well be flying above the Syrian capital of Damascus while its streets would run red with blood. But now a year later, the likes of Hiatt still have not absorbed that lesson and the spreading chaos from neocon strategies is destabilizing Europe. As shocking and disturbing as that is, none of it should have come as much of a surprise, since the neocons have always brought chaos and dislocations in their wake. When I first encountered the neocons in the 1980s, they had been given Central America to play with. President Ronald Reagan had credentialed many of them, bringing into the U.S. government neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. But Reagan mostly kept them out of the big-power realms: the Mideast and Europe. Those strategic areas went to the “adults,” people like James Baker, George Shultz, Philip Habib and Brent Scowcroft. The poor Central Americans, as they tried to shed generations of repression and backwardness imposed by brutal right-wing oligarchies, faced U.S. neocon ideologues who unleashed death squads and even genocide against peasants, students and workers. The result – not surprisingly – was a flood of refugees, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, northward to the United States. The neocon “success” in the 1980s, crushing progressive social movements and reinforcing the oligarchic controls, left most countries of Central America in the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, periodically driving more waves of what Reagan called “feet people” through Mexico to the southern U.S. border. Messing up the Mideast But the neocons weren’t satisfied sitting at the kids’ table. Even during the Reagan administration, they tried to squeeze themselves among the “adults” at the grown-ups’ table. For instance, neocons, such as Robert McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz, pushed Israel-friendly policies toward Iran, which the Israelis then saw as a counterweight to Iraq. That strategy led eventually to the Iran-Contra Affair, the worst scandal of the Reagan administration. [See Consortiumnews.com’s When Israel /Neocons Favored Iran.] However, the right-wing and mainstream U.S. media never liked the complex Iran-Contra story and thus exposure of the many levels of the scandal’s criminality was avoided. Democrats also preferred compromise to confrontation. So, most of the key neocons survived the Iran-Contra fallout, leaving their ranks still firmly in place for the next phase of their rise to power. In the 1990s, the neocons built up a well-funded infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets, benefiting from both the largesse of military contractors donating to think tanks and government-funded operations like the National Endowment for Democracy, headed by neocon Carl Gershman. The neocons gained more political momentum from the U.S. military might displayed during the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. Many Americans began to see war as fun, almost like a video game in which “enemy” forces get obliterated from afar. On TV news shows, tough-talking pundits were all the rage. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you couldn’t go wrong taking the most macho position, what I sometimes call the “er-er-er” growling effect. Combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the notion that U.S. military supremacy was unmatched and unchallengeable gave rise to neocon theories about turning “diplomacy” into nothing more than the delivery of U.S. ultimatums. In the Middle East, that was a view shared by Israeli hardliners, who had grown tired of negotiating with the Palestinians and other Arabs. Instead of talk, there would be “regime change” for any government that would not fall into line. This strategy was articulated in 1996 when a group of American neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, went to work for Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign in Israel and compiled a strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Iraq was first on the neocon hit list, but next came Syria and Iran. The overriding idea was that once the regimes assisting the Palestinians and Hezbollah were removed or neutralized, then Israel could dictate peace terms to the Palestinians who would have no choice but to accept what was on the table. In 1998, the neocon Project for the New American Century, founded by neocons Robert Kagan and William Kristol, called for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but President Bill Clinton balked at something that extreme. The situation changed, however, when President George W. Bush took office and the 9/11 attacks terrified and infuriated the American public. Suddenly, the neocons had a Commander-in-Chief who agreed with the need to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – and Americans were easily persuaded although Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. [See Consortiumnews.com’s The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.] The death of ‘realism’ The 2003 Iraq invasion sounded the death knell for foreign policy “realism” in Official Washington. Aging or dead, the old adult voices were silent or ignored. From Congress and the Executive Branch to the think tanks and the mainstream news media, almost all the “opinion leaders” were neocons and many liberals fell into line behind Bush’s case for war. And, even though the Iraq War “group think” was almost entirely wrong, both on the WMD justifications for war and the “cakewalk” expectations for remaking Iraq, almost no one who promoted the fiasco suffered punishment for either the illegality of the invasion or the absence of sanity in promoting such a harebrained scheme. Instead of negative repercussions, the Iraq War backers – the neocons and their liberal-hawk accomplices – essentially solidified their control over U.S. foreign policy and the major news media. From The New York Times and The Washington Post to the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, the “regime change” agenda continued to hold sway. It didn’t even matter when the sectarian warfare unleashed in Iraq left hundreds of thousands dead, displaced millions and gave rise to Al Qaeda’s ruthless Iraq affiliate. Not even the 2008 election of Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent, changed this overall dynamic. Rather than standing up to this new foreign policy establishment, Obama bowed to it, retaining key players from President Bush’s national security team, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, and by hiring hawkish Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, who became Secretary of State, and Samantha Power at the National Security Council. Thus, the cult of “regime change” did not just survive the Iraq disaster; it thrived. Whenever a difficult foreign problem emerged, the go-to solution was still “regime change,” accompanied by the usual demonizing of a targeted leader, support for the “democratic opposition” and calls for military intervention. President Obama, arguably a “closet realist,” found himself as the foot-dragger-in-chief as he reluctantly was pulled along on one “regime change” crusade after another. In 2011, for instance, Secretary of State Clinton and National Security Council aide Power persuaded Obama to join with some hot-for-war European leaders to achieve “regime change” in Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi had gone on the offensive against groups in eastern Libya that he identified as Islamic terrorists. But Clinton and Power saw the case as a test for their theories of “humanitarian warfare” – or “regime change” to remove a “bad guy” like Gaddafi from power. Obama soon signed on and, with the U.S. military providing crucial technological support, a devastating bombing campaign destroyed Gaddafi’s army, drove him from Tripoli, and ultimately led to his torture-murder. ‘We came, we saw, he died’ Secretary Clinton scurried to secure credit for this “regime change.” According to one email chain in August 2011, her longtime friend and personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal praised the bombing campaign to destroy Gaddafi’s army and hailed the dictator’s impending ouster. “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. … You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’” Clinton forwarded Blumenthal’s advice to Jake Sullivan, a close State Department aide. “Pls read below,” she wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.” Sullivan responded, saying “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. … You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.” However, when Gaddafi abandoned Tripoli that day, President Obama seized the moment to make a triumphant announcement. Clinton’s opportunity to highlight her joy at the Libyan “regime change” had to wait until Oct. 20, 2011, when Gaddafi was captured, tortured and murdered. In a TV interview, Clinton celebrated the news when it appeared on her cell phone and paraphrased Julius Caesar’s famous line after Roman forces achieved a resounding victory in 46 B.C. and he declared, “veni, vidi, vici” – “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Clinton’s reprise of Caesar’s boast went: “We came; we saw; he died.” She then laughed and clapped her hands. Killary Clinton Gaddafi was captured, tortured & murdered Presumably, the “Clinton Doctrine” would have been a policy of “liberal interventionism” to achieve “regime change” in countries where there is some crisis in which the leader seeks to put down an internal security threat and where the United States objects to the action.  [TokyRose Note:  similar scenario - done by Clinton No. 1:  Yugoslavia] But the problem with Clinton’s boasting about the “Clinton Doctrine” was that the Libyan adventure quickly turned sour with the Islamic terrorists, whom Gaddafi had warned about, seizing wide swaths of territory and turning it into another Iraq-like badlands. On Sept. 11, 2012, this reality hit home when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was overrun and U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomatic personnel were killed. It turned out that Gaddafi wasn’t entirely wrong about the nature of his opposition. Eventually, the extremist violence in Libya grew so out of control that the United States and European countries abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. Since then, Islamic State terrorists have begun decapitating Coptic Christians on Libyan beaches and slaughtering other “heretics.” Amid the anarchy, Libya has become a route for desperate migrants seeking passage across the Mediterranean to Europe. A war on Assad Parallel to the “regime change” in Libya was a similar enterprise in Syria in which the neocons and liberal interventionists pressed for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, whose government in 2011 cracked down on what had quickly become a violent rebellion led by extremist elements, though the Western propaganda portrayed the opposition as “moderate” and “peaceful.” For the first years of the Syrian civil war, the pretense remained that these “moderate” rebels were facing unjustified repression and the only answer was “regime change” in Damascus. Assad’s claim that the opposition included many Islamic extremists was largely dismissed as were Gaddafi’s alarms in Libya.  On Aug. 21, 2013, a sarin gas attack outside Damascus killed hundreds of civilians and the U.S. State Department and the mainstream news media immediately blamed Assad’s forces amid demands for military retaliation against the Syrian army. On Aug 30, 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have proof that the Syrian gov't was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, but evidence failed to materialize or was later discredited  [State Department photo] Despite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community about Assad’s responsibility for the sarin attack, which some analysts saw instead as a provocation by anti-Assad terrorists, the clamor from Official Washington’s neocons and liberal interventionists for war was intense and any doubts were brushed aside. But President Obama, aware of the uncertainty within the U.S. intelligence community, held back from a military strike and eventually worked out a deal, brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which Assad agreed to surrender his entire chemical-weapons arsenal while still denying any role in the sarin attack. Though the case pinning the sarin attack on the Syrian government eventually fell apart – with evidence pointing to a “false flag” operation by Sunni radicals to trick the United States into intervening on their side – Official Washington’s “group think” refused to reconsider the initial rush to judgment. In Monday’s column, Hiatt still references Assad’s “savagery of chemical weapons.” Any suggestion that the only realistic option in Syria is a power-sharing compromise that would include Assad – who is viewed as the protector of Syria’s Christian, Shiite and Alawite minorities – is rejected out of hand with the slogan, “Assad must go!” The neocons have created a conventional wisdom which holds that the Syrian crisis would have been prevented if only Obama had followed the neocons’ 2011 prescription of another U.S. intervention to force another “regime change.” Yet, the far more likely outcome would have been either another indefinite and bloody U.S. military occupation of Syria or the black flag of Islamic terrorism flying over Damascus. Get Putin Another villain who emerged from the 2013 failure to bomb Syria was Russian President Putin, who infuriated the neocons by his work with Obama on Syria’s surrender of its chemical weapons and who further annoyed the neocons by helping to get the Iranians to negotiate seriously on constraining their nuclear program. Despite the “regime change” disasters in Iraq and Libya, the neocons wanted to wave the “regime change” wand again over Syria and Iran. Putin got his comeuppance when U.S. neocons, including NED President Carl Gershman and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s wife), helped orchestrate a “regime change” in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and putting in a fiercely anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border. F*ck the EU CIA Ukraine Coup   Victoria Nuland As thrilled as the neocons were with their “victory” in Kiev and their success in demonizing Putin in the mainstream U.S. news media, Ukraine followed the now-predictable post-regime-change descent into a vicious civil war. Western Ukrainians waged a brutal “anti-terrorist operation” against ethnic Russians in the east who resisted the U.S.-backed coup.   Thousands of Ukrainians died and millions were displaced as Ukraine’s national economy teetered toward collapse. Yet, the neocons and their liberal-hawk friends again showed their propaganda skills by pinning the blame for everything on “Russian aggression” and Putin. Though Obama was apparently caught off-guard by the Ukrainian “regime change,” he soon joined in denouncing Putin and Russia. The European Union also got behind U.S.-demanded sanctions against Russia despite the harm those sanctions also inflicted on Europe’s already shaky economy. Europe’s stability is now under additional strain because of the flows of refugees from the war zones of the Middle East. A dozen years of chaos So, we can now look at the consequences and costs of the past dozen years under the spell of neocon/liberal-hawk “regime change” strategies. According to many estimates, the death toll in Iraq, Syria and Libya has exceeded one million with several million more refugees flooding into – and stretching the resources – of fragile Mideast countries. Hundreds of thousands of other refugees and migrants have fled to Europe, putting major strains on the Continent’s social structures already stressed by the severe recession that followed the 2008 Wall Street crash. Even without the refugee crisis, Greece and other southern European countries would be struggling to meet their citizens’ needs. Stepping back for a moment and assessing the full impact of neoconservative policies, you might be amazed at how widely they have spread chaos across a large swath of the globe. Who would have thought that the neocons would have succeeded in destabilizing not only the Mideast but Europe as well. And, as Europe struggles, the export markets of China are squeezed, spreading economic instability to that crucial economy and, with its market shocks, the reverberations rumbling back to the United States, too. We now see the human tragedies of neocon/liberal-hawk ideologies captured in the suffering of the Syrians and other refugees flooding Europe and the death of children drowning as their desperate families flee the chaos created by “regime change.” But will the neocon/liberal-hawk grip on Official Washington finally be broken? Will a debate even be allowed about the dangers of “regime change” prescriptions in the future? Not if the likes of The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt have anything to say about it. The truth is that Hiatt and other neocons retain their dominance of the mainstream U.S. news media, so all that one can expect from the various MSM outlets is more neocon propaganda, blaming the chaos not on their policy of “regime change” but on the failure to undertake even more “regime change. The one hope is that many Americans will not be fooled this time and that a belated “realism” will finally return to U.S. geopolitical strategies that will look for obtainable compromises to restore some political order to places such as Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Rather than more and more tough-guy/gal confrontations, maybe there will finally be some serious efforts at reconciliation. But the other reality is that the interventionist forces have rooted themselves deeply in Official Washington, inside NATO, within the mainstream news media and even in European institutions. It will not be easy to rid the world of the grave dangers created by neocon policies. http://newcoldwar.org/refugee-crisis-how-neocons-destabilized-europe/  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Ran into a problem formatting above copy article.   Best to go to original for easy read:  this copy's for me.  lol Lost my paragraph formatting while editing layout after highlighting (long story), not far off being ready to publish post.   Having spent ages highlighting, I've had to recreate the paragraphs.  Hopefully I've not put in too many additional paragraphs. The videos didn't appear in the linked-to article source. I really love this article.   I think Parry's being too kind to Obama.  Obama's on the same plutocratic / Wall Street team as everybody else: so the Ukraine coup came as no surprise to Obama. Those horrible women using 'humanitarianism' to destroy countries (and people), have never had anything to do with humanitarian concerns; that's just the cover and an excuse for destruction.  And these same neocon animals are now destroying Europe - with the cooperation of neocon swine European politicians who don't care about the future of their own people or nations. The proposed 'Clinton doctrine' goes way back to the early 1990s Balkans under Bill 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' Clinton (and probably earlier than that).  So, this is not that new. We're all screwed. What we see in the United States is pretty much what controls the entire West, via the US neocon foreign policy that is backed by various toady politicians in US-allied countries, who are replicas acting on behalf of the same monied interests (rather than national interests). The 'opposition' are just more replicas of these neocons and are their accomplices, no matter what they publicly pay lip-service to. Now I need to go away and digest all of this.  lol This means that Western governments don't care about us or our societies, and that they routinely lie to us. It also means that Western media routinely lies to us, as well. Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

MH17: Australian Politican vs Putin

Australian Politician vs Putin https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wR2elGUBLVI Source:  QualityControlCentre - YouTube MH17

In Summary: RUSSIA, FRANCE, UKRAINE

RUSSIA #Russia - x6 Rus. fighter jets intercepted near #Alaska - in Air Defence Identification Zone (not airspace) http://goo.gl/aWTtgZ ADIZ - no treaty, no reg. body etc - just 'buffer' space 2 prepare 4 foreign aircraft - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone … “The ADIZ is a zone of airspace which extends out approximately 200 miles from the coastline and is mainly within international airspace.” FOX NEWS SPINNING CRAP - "US fighter jets intercept #Russian military planes off Alaskan coast" - sound serious. but Rus. not in airspace. -----------------------------------------------------    FRANCE   #France - Marine Le Pen's anti-imm/ National Front party won abt 14 % of Calais vote in town hall elections in March [WorldBulletin]  Calais a prob 4  UK | ($6.4 million) annually over 3 years contribution to border control @ Calais - deal done [WorldBulletin] http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/144794/britain-france-agree-to-tackle-illegal-immigrants -----------------------------------------------------  UKRAINE RT >> "#Ukraine’s parliament agreed to give more autonomy to eastern parts" Economist >> #Novorossiya, that doesn't sound like independence -----------------------------------------------------  Watch #CarlBildt talk a heap of crap about #Russia 'smash & grab' & threat to World Order >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sT0ITOYLjyE … Global Strategic Review >> 'Democracy' in #Ukraine 'threat' to Russia ... Carl & co need for find a new schtick. Nobody's buying democracy for Ukr. Carl's prescription: 'help' Ukr. REFORM ECON/ end 'insane' dependence subsid. GAS 'preserve' + strengthen DEMOCR. pol system >> This will line pockets of West ... er, save Ukr, THWART Kremlin 'ambitions' & FEARS of LARGE PARTS EU will subside! LOL >>> Once that's sorted, everyone can get on with real agenda ... COLONISATION .. er, 'integration' ... hahahah >Resort to 'decade ago' nostalgia crap .. prosperity, security, freedom, peace & stability ... NOW 'exposed', 'vulnerable' LOL >>> Cool ... Carl says #Putin could well be in power in #Russia a decade from now! Maybe Carl can get anor job in Georgia? > Well, well ... Carl did say 'IF' they succeed (referring 2 Ukr/ 'project') .. so Carl & co ain't so sure of themselves. LOL  Postscript Carl Bildt is honoured to be invited to become a member of the Council of IISS COMMENT Bildt's heading for the IISS. Probably his reward.  Looks like it's where all the establishment types go when they've served their purposes in government etc. Fox News media distortion spotted.  With the picture of the US jet fighter and the headline, you'd think this 'interception' of Russian jet-fighters was some big deal.  Nope, it's not.  Weren't even in US airspace.  Furthermore, this sort of thing is a common occurrence ... someone quoted as saying 'about 10 times a year' (paraphrasing). That's about it from yesterday's travels.  Hope you enjoy it as much as I have.

BBC ANTI-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA - FOR US CORPORATE PHARAOHS

ORDER of appearance in post:

1.  BBC article/video.
2.  Background research on survey provider, including trail of companies.
3.  Poster's analysis & commentary regarding video presentation linked to BBC story.
4.  Poster's comments.
5.  Poster's conclusion.

WARNING:  it is quite a lengthy post.  But worth checking out.  LOL.
---------------------------------------------------

BBC ARTICLE INFOTAINMENT PROPAGANDA

Negative views of Russia and Putin on the rise globally

2 hours ago [UNDATED]

Russia's global image is increasingly negative, according to a nsurvey from the Pew Research Center.

This is despite Russians believing that President Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine would improve the country's reputation abroad.

Pew Research found that increasing numbers of people around the world held unfavourable views of Russia and its president, especially in Europe and the United States.

And as the violence in Ukraine continues, 60% of people there had negative views of Russia - a huge increase from 11% in 2011.

The BBC's Ashley Semler looks at the results.

Edited by Dave Mayers

Source:  BBC News Magazine - here.
--------------------------------------------------- 
POSTER:  RESEARCH / COMMENT

BBC

Type ....................... Public corporation with a Royal Charter
Industry ................. Mass media
Predecessor(s) ...... British Broadcasting Company
Founded  ...............18 October 1922

Headquarters     Broadcasting House, London, England, United Kingdom
Area served       Worldwide

Products     Broadcasting, radio, web portals
Services     Television, radio, online
Revenue     £5.102 billion (2012/13)

Owner(s)     Government of United Kingdom 

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------
Pew Research Centre (funds survey organisation)

The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. 

Budget .......... $250m
Endowment ... $5 billion 

Established by Pew Charitable Trusts:

The Pew Charitable Trusts is an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization (NGO), founded in 1948.

With over US$5 billion in assets, its stated mission is to serve the public interest by "improving public policy, informing the public, and stimulating civic life" ...

The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary of, 7 charitable funds established between 1948-79 by ... —the adult sons and daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew ...

Controversy - alleged theft of $25billion (@ 2009 value) art collection

The controversy involving Pew, other donors, the Barnes trustees and the collection was the subject of the documentary film The Art of the Steal. The Trusts did not participate in the film. Rebecca Rimel, head of the Pew Charitable Trusts, said they believed the film would not be fair. 

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------
Sun Oil Company

Sunoco Inc. is an American petroleum and petrochemical manufacturer headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, formerly known as Sun Company Inc. (1886–1920 and 1976–1998) and Sun Oil Co. (1920–1976). Sunoco is one of the largest gasoline distribution companies in the United States  ...

Sunco Inc

Type .................... Subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners

Traded as ............. NYSE: SUN

Industry               Oil and gas

Founded                Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. (1886 as Sun Company Inc.)

Founder(s)             Joseph Newton Pew

Philip Pisano

Edward O. Emerson

Headquarters          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.

Area served            Worldwide

Key people             Robert W. Owens President, CEO

Products                 Petrochemical

Petroleum
Fuel
Lubricants

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners

Energy Transfer Equity was founded in 1995  and is currently headquartered in Dallas, Texas. They currently employ 5,000 individuals including the founder, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Kelcy Warren.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.  ... owning and operating one of the largest and most diversified portfolios of energy assets in the United States.

Type     ............... Public
Traded as    ........ NYSE: ETP
Industry    ........... Energy
Founded    ......... 1995
Headquarters ..... Dallas, Texas
Products    ......... natural gas, propane
Employees ......... 5000+
Subsidiaries ....... Southern Union Company
.......................... Sunoco

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

2012 merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of ETP (with Sunoco)

ETP .. acquired ...interests, 100% of the incentive distribution rights, and a 32.4% ...interest in Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.

SUNCO - operates a geographically diverse portfolio of crude oil and refined products pipelines, terminalling and crude oil acquisition and marketing assets.

ETP also holds a 70% interest in Lone Star NGL, a joint venture that owns and operates natural gas liquids storage...[u]fractionation and transportation assets[/u] in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

ETP holds controlling interest in a corporation (ETP Holdco Corporation) (that owns Southern Union Company)

Sunoco, Inc. ETP’s general partner is owned by ETE.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ...owns the general partner and 100% of the incentive distribution rights (IDRs) of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ...owns approximately 50.2 million ETP limited partner units; and owns the general partner and 100% of the IDRs of Regency Energy Partners LP and approximately 26.3 million RGP limited partner units.

ETE also owns a non-controlling interest in a corporation (ETP Holdco Corporation) that owns Southern Union Company and Sunoco, Inc.

The ETE family of companies owns approximately 69,000 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquids, refined products, and crude pipelines...
[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------

Back to - source of Survey: 
Pew Research Centre (funded by Pew Charitable Trusts)

Between 1957 and 1979, six other trusts were created, representing the personal and complementary philanthropic interests of the four siblings. The Trusts remains based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with an office in Washington, D.C.

Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were themselves politically conservative. The mission of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust, one of the seven funds, was to:


"acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won". Joseph N. Pew, Jr. called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S. businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs".


Early priorities of the Pew Memorial Trust included cancer research, the American Red Cross, and a pioneering project to assist historically black colleges. Later beneficiaries included conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, the American Liberty League, and the American Enterprise Institute, as well as environmental organizations such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Oceana, and mainstream think tanks like the Brookings Institution. ...

In 2004, the Pew Trusts applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to change its status from private foundation to nonprofit organization. Since the Pew's change to a charitable foundation, it can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

According to the Pew's 2009 Annual Report, five of the twelve Directors serving on the Board are named Pew. Two of the five are physicians.

Pew's environmental portfolio is designed to help meet what they view as one of the seminal challenges of our time: saving the natural environment and protecting the rich array of life it supports. [LOL - is this aim compatible with energy resources sector activities?]


The aim is to strengthen environmental policies and practices in ways that produce significant and measurable protection for terrestrial and marine systems worldwide. In doing so, Pew works to advance scientific understanding of the causes and consequences of environmental problems, design innovative policy solutions to these problems and mobilize public support for their implementation. [Oh, sure.  I'd love a look at what they're involved in on that front.]

Efforts are focused on reducing the scope and severity of three major global environmental problems:

Destruction of the world's oceans, with a particular emphasis on marine fisheries.

The loss of large wilderness ecosystems that contain a great part of the world's remaining biodiversity.
Changes to the Earth's physical and biological systems linked to the build-up of greenhouse gases that are altering the world's climate.

The Trusts also funds the Pew Research Center, the third-largest think tank in Washington DC, after the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress.

[wikipedia]
---------------------------------------------------

COMMENT


RE: BBC MAGAZINE ARTICLE & VIDEO


Found my first piece of obviously perverse political propaganda, courtesy of the BBC.


It seems an innocuous little entertainment piece in the 'BBC Magazine' section of the site.

On linking to the 'Negative views of Russia and Putin on the rise globally' article at BBC, a little 1:54 minute video with girly narrator automatically launches itself.

[Grim looking static image of Putin 'staring' at us.]

[Russian sounding string instrument music.]

It tells us that Putin's 'global image has taken a turn for the worst in the past year'.


It launches into what Russians allegedly thought would be the outcome of Putin's alleged involvement 'this spring' in the Ukraine would accomplish for the impression of Russia (ie that it would 'lead to a more favourable opinion of Russia around the world, but ...').

Russia's involvement in the Ukraine?

As far as I am aware, there is plenty of US involvement in the Ukraine and Russia is within its own borders.  LOL.

Did the US 'charity' survey the Russian populance and if so, how?

Of course they bleeding didn't.

Girly narrator states:  "the opposite seems to be true."

Hey, did they do a Russian survey or didn't they?  LOL.

Oooh, a "new survey from the 'nusurvey' from the Pew Institute Centre found that Russia is increasing unpopular in many countries, especially in Europe and the United States.

[Cut to Obama (in Poland ... (Polish flag & coat of arms is on display)]
Obama is shown forcefully announcing:

 "We will not accept Russia's occupation of Crimea or its violation of Ukraine sovereignty", 

 while Obama gestures with a pointed-finger for emphasis, at the podium.

[Cut to US flag]
"Disapproval has surged the most in the US ..."

[quote alleged US disapproval figures, which mean jack]

Narrator claims that unfavourable views have increased this year in all of the European countries surveyed (except Greece) [but who cares about that ...LOL]

"Violence in Ukraine continues..." the narrator states.  But what is not stated is that this is US backed and supported violence against eastern Ukrainians, perpetrated by a Ukraine puppet government that gained ascension through violent insurrection of ultra-nationalist extremist groups, with the blessings of the US (who seek to further their selfish corporate and strategic interests in the region).

"As violence in Ukraine continues, it's neighbour Poland, once part of the Soviet Union, is growing much more wary of the former cold war power." the narrator states.
[Bear in mind,  the violence the narrator refers to is Ukraine puppet government violence against eastern Ukrainians.  Bear in mind also, Poland is now a US puppet.]

[CUT to masked paramilitary guy and Russian hat wearing guy] 

"After Russia annexed Crimea .... "   [quote dubious figures]

"Ukrainians have a negative view of the country  [ie Russia]

"When asked about President Putin specifically 73% of Ukrainians expressed disappointment in his handling of foreign affairs", the narrator states.

[Did they interview all Ukrainians, or was it just some? LOL]

[What is implied here is that a majority of Ukrainians disapprove of Putin and of Russia.  

We are not in a position to evaluate survey methodology (or information regarding the population SAMPLES allegedly surveyed in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world), so this 'information' from such-and-such organisation is really useless.]

[CUT to drawing of Ukraine split down the middle with 89% disapproval on the Western side & 66% disapproval on the Eastern side of Ukraine.]

[Once again, where are these figures coming from -- who surveyed the entire country?]

"But that's complicated by geography...", the narrator states before...

[CUT to drawing of Crimea]

"...only 5%in Crimea said the same"... [So when was the whole of Crimea surveyed?]

[CUT to pretty globe turning...]

"And when other countries were asked about Putin, majorities in only a handful said they had confidence in him -- ALL IN AFRICA & ASIA."  
[OK, now it's absolutely clear that his 'survey' is a complete load of manure.]

Note the other countries.  What they're doing is holding out that right across the globe, Russia and Putin are disapproved of (except in a 'handful of countries') [LOL].  But they are conveying this dubious 'survey' information with absolutely no leg to stand on:  the 'survey' authority is laughable and worthless.

[CUT to pretty two-globe graphic (on the reference to 'only a handful') -- and display the words:

KENYA
TANZANIA
VIETNAM
CHINA
BANGLADESH

on pretty double-globe graphic as the words:

 "all in Africa and Asia" are stated by the female narrator.

Bear in mind, this alleged global survey is tied to Putin & Russia's 'ACTION' in Ukraine -- where there HAS BEEN NO ACTION TO DATE.

"But as the rest of the world seems to be turning on Russia, the Russians themselves are feeling more patriotic than ever.  Pride in their country is up almost ...".

[Sorry, American oil-trust funded NGO turned 'charity', I don't buy your survey in relation to Russia or the 'world'.]

"Ashley Sadler, BBC News" says a twangy female narrator, who is either "Ashleigh" or "Ashley", presumably.

Well, isn't Ashley Sadler quite the authority there at BBC news.  LOL.

[EDIT * the name of video narrator is:  Ashley Semler, as per article above.  Apologies, I was going by audio. ]

---------------------------------------------------
 CONCLUSION

It is extremely dangerous to passively accept information conveyed, even from seemingly respectable and reliable news and information sources.

The morality of seeking to influence a passive public in this way is highly questionable; as is having a state run media group (BBC) that is clearly NOT INDEPENDENT from the State.

Very disappointed in the BBC.

How many readers and viewers of this type of propaganda are going to take the trouble to check all facts and all sources associated with the subject, and dig up facts associated with the ultimate source of the information the news entity relies upon?

Basically, nobody is going to go into fine tooth comb fact checking.

The beauty of this little production piece is that it teaches many things about power, corporations, government, NGOs, charities, hijacking of causes, corporate expansionism and imperialism, propaganda and so on:

The piece is a perfect example of propaganda.  Short and sweet.  And full of shit.


The Obama cut-to gave Obama/US a 'soundbite', which is an example of how powerful this type of communication (and adamant finger-pointing visual) is as a tool.

The survey itself is dubious.

Come on people, how did this 'nsurvey' mob interview the populace of the entire planet?

The 'survey' (if it ever actually happened) and the 'figures' are irrelevant because these people do not have access to the populations of an entire planet (or even entire countries) - and however much funding they receive, their survey (if any) is a sample, conducted to represent what is in line with their aims (LOL).


The imagery of Obama was positive and supposedly concerned for 'sovereignty' -- where US itself violates sovereignty worldwide and, really, has no business in Europe.

That argument aside, where was the concern for the elected government of the Ukraine -- and its sovereignty and laws - when groups of US enabled thugs drove the government from its elected position?

Obama is portrayed as commanding, effectual, adamant about Russia's occupation of Crimea and defender, adamant about the importance of protecting the sovereingty of the Ukraine.

The stark, unpalatable, stomach sickening reality is that it is corporate American interests that are annexing the Ukraine, and Obama is their spokesperson and figurehead.

Congress is funding Obama's push into the Ukraine -- and we're talking big dollars, people.

Who controls US politics?  It's corporations.  The government is there to do the bidding of corporate interests.

Colossal US political machinery and cash funding have now pretty much usurped the sovereignty of Ukraine, as the US puppet government in the Ukraine seems to have sold their country to corporate America.

The Russian imagery is negative:

• unpleasing image of Putin.
• scarey looking paramilitary figure in fatigues and black blaclava and what appears to be a rabble of guys, one of whom is wearing a Russian fluffy hat.

But, of course.  That's part and parcel of such a piece.

Note the presence of NGO turned 'charity' and the presence of 'think tank'.
BEWARE:  NGO, charity & think tank.  In fact, don't take candy from strangers.  LOL.
BEWARE:  organisations that are survey or polling organisations. 

The accusations that Obama (and his vast corporate-government machine) level at Russia, are the very things Obama and corporate America are guilty of.  So, people, beware the preacher man.

What this has also shown me is that there is no 'US government'; it's just one large corporate-run machine that serves corporate interests first and foremost.

The people' of this colossal 'democracy' are not represented; they're fooled.

The lofty US ideals we've all been fed on in made-in-America TV and in movies (right around the world), are about as real as God, Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

It has taken me all my life to rub the sleep from my eyes and to finally come to this realisation.

We are all nothing but pawn-slaves to Corporate Pharaohs of this world.

------------------
 NOTE WELL:

In 2004, the Pew Trusts applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to change its status from private foundation to nonprofit organization. Since the Pew's change to a charitable foundation, it can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

According to the Pew's 2009 Annual Report, five of the twelve Directors serving on the Board are named Pew.

**** can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

So government has now allowed the trust to raise colossal corporate (& billionaire patron) funding to interfere with government.

Five percent of my budget is fuck all.  But 5% of a budget that is virtually unlimited in corporate America, amounts to a great deal of  public sector lobbbying influence.

On top of that, five out of 12 Directors of the Trusts are named Pew.   Hello, people?  The guess is they've not been disinherited.  Can anyone say oil corporate interests?

Oh and how about the nerve of the benefactor who established the trusts:

ie the 'evils of bureaucracy' (ie that means GOVERNMENT for the people) and singing the praises of a FREE MARKET (a free for all for corporate America, more like it)?

That was the mission of the trusts that were founded by Pew.


End comment.

[All research sourced at:  wikipedia]